presentation on Standing Liberty Quarters

I am a little confused in my research. I read that there are Type I, Type II and Type IIi designed SLQs. However, I see information differentiating the 1916 design to the 1917 type I. So is the 1916 SLQ a type I or a design of its own, actually making it 4 types?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Type 1 is 1916 and the early part of 1917. Later in 1917, the obverse had minor changes to the much discussed parts of liberty and stars were added to the reverse under the eagle; this design remained unchanged until 1924 and is type two (a). In 1925 the date was recessed to help keep the date from wearing off so quickly. This third rising with the recessed date is referred to as both type three and type two (b).

As far as collecting them, it’s a great set, but by far the most challenging of any twentieth century coinage. I’ve been working on mine for the past thirty years, and though it is complete as far as date and mintmark, it is far away from being put to bed.

 

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_Liberty_quarter

 

1916 is a pattern. 1917 has Type I and Type II, 1925-30 has the date recessed into the pediment, or Type III

 

I was aware of the J-1988 Farouk/Kasoff/Cline pattern, but are all 1916s patterns, or generally just considered type I? I became very interested in the R-8 PR-50 pattern because it is the only SLQ that is a proof that has not been debated (though it is a pattern and not a regular issue). There are other 1917 type I that are speculated to be matte proofs, though there are no mint records of their manufacturer. Because no mint records exist for proof mintage for the series, and since the few that have been considered proofs over the years have always been somewhat controversial, no TPG will ever certify one as such.

 

Type I is typically reserved for the regular circulation coins (1917).

The 1916s are not included because of their status as patterns.

 

I have enjoyed reading this thread, as I am a collector of the Standing Liberty Quarters. I believe they are one of the most beautiful coins the mint has ever produced. I have been working on my set for a long time also and I am just getting started on the more expensive ones, which are out of my price range except in lower grades. I did purchase a 1917-S Type 1, VF-20, full date at the last local coin show. Next on my list is the 1917-D Type 2. Hoping to learn more about these coins as this thread continues.

 

Are you sure about that? Both the PCGS and NGC pages for this issue indicate that they were released for circulation. They're rare because they were only struck for the last two weeks of 1916, and they're even rarer in high grades because they were released together with the 1917 coins, making it hard for collectors to grab them.

 

As always, I apologize if I am incorrect, but I have always believed the 1916s to be pattern coins.

That said, the 1916s are different from the 1917s in subtle ways and the nomenclature of Type I and II refer to 1917 coins.

 

Not a pattern coin, a mintage of 52000 is way too high to be considered as such: http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/Coin/Detail/5704

Also it says “virtually all examples entered circulation, thus accounting for the scarcity of high grade examples today.”

Looking at completed auction records, the prices for nice 1916 SLQs are at a “pattern level” though - it’s a 5-digit coin. I’ll keep looking for a 1917 T1

 

I didn’t think that it was a pattern either, but can easily see where the confusion would stem. It is very similar to the 1856 flying eagle where the initial years production levels were far less than subsequent years. The 1856 has long been considered a pattern piece, but has always been collected as a regular issue.

 

Don't forget to mention the off metal errors! There is one on a steel cent planchet
https://coins.ha.com/itm/errors/und...a-steel-cent-planchet-ms64-pcgs/a/1191-3790.s

 

From this interesting discussion, I do not feel like such a moron, as the definition of a type 1 is not perfectly clear.

I did like the remark that the SLQ collection is one of the most difficult in 20th century coin collecting.

From my research, learning about MacNeil was fascinating as well as identifying a 1916 SLQ with no visible dare.

 

The 1916 and early 1917's are both considered type I even though there are some design differences.

The 1916 is not a pattern. The design was approved and adopted, and released into circulation that same year. So the coins released were of the approved design. The 1856 flying Eagle cent is a pattern, because the design was not approved until February 1857. So all of the 1856 coins were of a design with a date the year before the design was approved.

 

I agree with this. Standing Liberties are my long term hold collection and I focus alot on them.

These significant type changes are important to the dedicated SLQ collector. I focus on nice surface, mid-grade circulated and strong date T2a coins (1917-1924). F-EF/AUs with the above qualities are pretty scarce on the ground and can sell for premiums and, I believe, have long term market value.

 

The chain mail was included because of the outrage of the bare breast. The congressmen’s wives were upset about it and wanted a change. There were other reasons out there but was the bare breast outrage caused the design change, which pissed off MacNeil.

 

That's approximately the story I learned as a kid, too, but most analysis I've read as an adult indicates otherwise.

 

Cline in his book mentioned the outrage from the Congresswomen. It had nothing to do with World War I

 

Congress passed a bill that said coin designs could be changed after 25 years. In 1916, anti-Barber powers used this statute to imply that coin designs "had to" change after 25 years.

I don't recall all the issues involved, but the net result was a redesign of the dime, quarter, and half dollar in 1916.

There's a really good book on the subject entitled "The Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921" by Roger W. Burdette ...that addresses all these issues and backs it up with correspondence between various Mint officials and Designers.

I need to go back and read it again...it's been awhile. I recall that, early on, the big "controversy" was with the angle of the eagle's talons.