SLQ Type I - just outside my budget

Well it seems we are using market grading and you are using technical grading. This coin has the luster, strike, and eye appeal of an MS67 coin. In the absence of grade limiting surface marks, the very minor imperfections that you pointed out will not drop the grade below MS66. Does the coin have more minor abrasions than many other MS66 SLQ's? Probably. Does that in itself preclude it from still being and MS66? Absolutely Not.

Emotion has nothing to do with this. Market grading includes other factors besides surface preservation. If you just grade the technical aspects of the piece, then you are giving a technical grade, not a market grade. And although the ANA standards mention the other areas of grading, they don't say what to do with a coin that has three elements of grading at the MS67 level and one at the MS64 level other than to call the coin an MS64. While you may be OK with that methodology for grading, most collectors would not be able to fathom seeing this coin in an MS64 holder.

BTW, how does the ANA define numerous, several, and few?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

TY but the strike difference between the two eagles is astounding. Although I think the obverse of mine gives it a run for it's money until you look at the head.

 

I have the book too, it's different with regard to SLQs and, IMO, it contradicts itself all over the place. I think you're comparing this coin to general grading standards. SLQ Uncirculated standards are on pg 199 and pg 202 of my copy of the book which is the 6th edition.

MS-70 (Ignore it, the highest ANY SLQ has EVER been graded by a real TPG is MS68)

MS67: Virtually flawless, but with very minor imperfections

MS65: No trace of wear; nearly as perfect as MS-67 except for some small blemishes. Has full mint luster but may be toned or lightly fingermarked. A few barely noticeable nicks or marks may be present. Head details may be incomplete.

MS63: A Mint state coin with attractive mint luster, but noticeable detracting contact marks or minor blemishes.

Then you read the following on pg 25 about MS-66..

"Has above average quality of surface and mint luster, with no more than 3 or 4 minor or noticeable contact marks. A few light hairlines may show under magnification, or there may be one or two light scuff marks showing. Eye appeal is above average and very pleasing for the date and mint. If copper, the coin has some attractive luster with original or darkened color as designated.
Contact Marks: Light and scattered without major distracting marks in prime focal areas.

So the ANA Book is confusing.

But you also have to factor in luster, strike and eye appeal, and that's what got this coin in a 66 holder. Now, there's nothing particularly special about luster on SLQs but strike is HUGE on these coins and eye appeal ties into strike.

It's like that 1916 that's MS67FH in the upcoming FUN sale, it's got one monster strike for a 1916 and is a really choice piece. Does it have more contact marks than would be allowed on a more common date in that grade or a less well struck coin? Of course. It's an MS65 IMO, but the strike forgives an awful lot on that coin.

Meanwhile your typical flat head with mushy details and weak shield SLQ is going to have to be virtually flawless to get in a 66/67 holder.

Or like a Morgan Dollar that I own, it's bagmarked up like a 62/63 coin, but it's also an 1881-O. Big deal you say.. ahh, but guess what? Every engraved piece of hair is sharply defined, it's as nicely struck as a strong Philadelphia or CC struck coin. I would not be at all surprised if it came back in a 64 or 65 holder if I sent it in.

 

Exactly! Yours is beautiful, but the reverse is the key. SLQs were struck with the obverse as the hammer and the reverse as the anvil side of the die so even though the reverse was an easier side to stike than the complex obverse, truly sharp and prooflike strikes of the reverse on these coins are MUCH tougher to find than you might think. The fixation on Liberty's head also causes collectors to tend to ignore the reverse.

For a while people thought that the Reverse was the Hammer side and the Obverse the Anvil side due to so many flat head coins which is why I mentioned it.

 

There is mp way this coin is an MS64...none. The arguement is academic. I've been shopping SLQ TI's for about 6 months and have looked at maybe 1000 examples and this is might be the best strike I'd ever seen. The on;y hits worth saying anything out is the knee and the o. The picture is very blown up, which shows just how detailed the strike is, but over states the hits.

This coin, in addition, has drop dead eye apeal and will be easy to resell at the 1825 dollar price asuming the recession hasn't taken all the steam out of the market.

Ruben

 

Here is my slq type 1 that is in my type set. I keep telling everyone that the "hit" on libertys bust was actually done intentionally by the mint to enhance realism. For some reason, nobody believes me...

Oh well, it's worth a shot...

 

Is this the same as saying, for instance, that a "market grade" MS-70 coin could actually have one or two minor defects that would otherwise put it in a "technical grade" of MS-69?

Either strict grading standards are followed or they are not. If they are not then there is no real meaning to the grading system.

It seems that there are several standards for grading, depending on which organization is doing the grading, and everyone is free to either accept whichever grade is most advantageous to themselves, or to substitute their own grading.

So who is the accepted grading expert? ANA, PCGS, Yeoman, the US Mint, HA, you, Joe down the street, me, or...?

I get the impression that grading is as used more for "bragging rights" than for marketing realities, e.g., "Ignore those little marks there, my coin is really a MS-67 because it looks so nice otherwise."; or for selling vs buying, e.g., "What so you mean you'll only give me a MS-63 price for my coin. You can plainly see it looks nice enough to be MS-65."

We often say, "Buy the coin, not the holder." implying that regardless of what anyone (the grading service) says, the grade is meaningless until we self-grade. This means that our own subjectivity supersedes another's objectivity. This negates the usefulness of any grading system.

 

If that was literally "just outside of my budget"... I'd have to make it "just inside of my budget".

 

Agreed, That is one tremendous coin. You should ask yourself when is the next time you'll have an opurtunity to pick up an example like this at this price? You won't regret it.

 

No. Your missing the point. Not because it looks nice otherwise but because it makes other '67s of the same type and mint look like cheap knockoffs. When I read this it apears to me that your so intent on winning the argument that your not being honest here. Aside from refusing the recognize the strike, your also batantly ingoring the fact that the coin is blown up. Your not even sounding rational.

Ruben

 

Ruben,

I am going to make a suggestion. If you are shopping for a single T1 SLQ, forget about a 1917. A 1917 T1 in MS65FH costs about $1,000 or so and about half that a point lower. They made 8.74 Million of them. 80% or so were FHs per Jay Cline (Who I tend to trust on SLQs).

This means a coin that is 1 out of 7 Million ever struck costs about $1,000 in MS65FH and $500 in MS64FH

A 1917-S in MS65FH brings around $3,000 or so and half that in MS64FH. They made about 1.9 Million 1917-S T1s, 5% at most were FHs.

This means a coin that is 1 out of 95,000 ever struck costs about $3,000, again, about half that in MS64FH

A 1917-S FH is about 70 times as rare as a Philly coin, strikewise, but is only twice the money.

Hmmm......

No, pricing and values of SLQs do not make, as a rule, any logical sense whatsoever. Some relatively easy to obtain coins are super expensive, some downright rarities are quite cheap. It seems that people on heavy drugs set the market on these...

 

That drug is probably sex apeal

the fact that this coin has high demand does more to protect its value than a rarity. In fact, if a coin or other collectable is to rare, it undermines its own value because people lose interest in it. Obviously, if as you describe things and those numbers are true then demand is driving the prices. I've looked over a lot of '17 type ones. This coin is a rare find on the market.

Ruben

 

BTW - that coin seems to be better than anything Cline currently has available on his site.

Ruben

 

That's true and also because when a guy like Cline gets a gem like this it never makes it to his website. $50 says when he gets super stuff he's got it placed already.

Bill

 

What I was getting at was more that certain dates are very under or overvalued in SLQs, some dates are way undervalued and some are insanely overvalued, you'll see some coins where the real world pop is a fraction of a comparably valued date.

Bill
Btw, I'm getting good at this iPhone thing . I'm sitting in a clothing store while my mother who I am chauferring around shops.

 

Well I'm posting from my ASUS EEEPC from the middle of nowhere at a busstop nowhere going to a hospital nearly nowhere...10 miles from the Pennsylvania boarder in the snow.

Ruben

 

Ruben-

As seen in the quotes above, I did make favorable comments on the coin's overall appearance.

How do you think I'm ignoring the fact that the coin is blown up when it was presented here as a greatly enlarged picture? If we were not to see the defects it should not have been presented as it was.

Expecting me to view and comment only on the best part of the coin while ignoring the bad parts without comment is rather disingenuous on your part.

As far as rationality, that's exactly what I am looking for here. Where is the rationality in grading a coin only on it's better points, while ignoring the points that would otherwise detract from that grading?

I've asked several questions in this thread to help me understand the entire rationality of the grading process, with this coin as an example. Those questions have not been answered, perhaps you'd like to answer a few of them?

 

David, what I'm telling you is that the photo is overstating the hits and even the ANA guild talks about how much magnification hits should be viewable in. I'm telling you that in the hand this coin will be exceptionally clean and the strike, the raw material of higher graded coins, is tops tops. The reverse eagle of this coin is very rare with detailed feathering on the breast. Unless a strike like this is really maulled it will be graded at least a 65, and this one is clean enough to go 66 without a problem.

For the more technical aspects of the grading, best leaving that explanation to the PhD's in grading.


Go look at heritage and line up type 1s buy grade and compare.

Ruben

 

For what it's worth, here's my Ty-1 1917