1916 Standing Liberty Quarter looks more like a 1917

No I think this is genuine. When I originally saw it I asked him when he submitted it and it was submitted at the proper time for this slab style. I think pcgs just got this one wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I messaged the guy again and said are you still trying to sell this coin? I say you need to send it back to pcgs. I just hope people with enough money to spend on a coin like this are smart enough to know what this is. He'll eventually pass it off somewhere.

 

You could try posting about it on the PCGS forums, or you could email them directly. There’s a good chance they’ll try to contact the owner themselves, and/or invalidate the certification number. PCGS should have a vested interest in getting this corrected, because (1) it’s best to head this off sooner rather than later to mitigate any guarantee/“mechanical error”/etc. issues, and (2) it’s embarrassing to have such a glaring error in one of their holders.

 

I've got to say, it's kind of amusing how sometimes we try and second guess the professional graders at PCGS, NGC, ANACS and ICG. Sure, sometimes they make mistakes, sometimes serious ones, but you might want to consider a little modesty and respect for the authenticity - I'm not saying the grade, on coins like this. I know the grades are always debatable, especially in the MS distinctions, and sure, sometimes they do make mistakes, however, I have an FR02, Details 1916 SLQ that went through the same criticism and debate here - that was the subject of my very first post here. The debate on mine was mostly based on my terrible picture taking skills, which is entirely fair. Consider that dateless 1916s have to go through additional scrutiny from multiple graders precisely because they are putting a big price tag and target on that sort of coin. They guarantee authenticity.

Bottom line I personally went back and forth with ICG, second guessing myself - though I have been studying SLQs for some years and submitted mine because it was different than the dateless 1917 type 1s I have - it rang 1916 to me, and I was right. But I was worried about it after all the calls of "I think it's a 1917!!" from the peanut gallery here, and so I got a grip on the process, I communicated with one of the graders directly, and I'm confident that this PCGS slabbed 1916 looks pretty similar to mine. The fact that somebody put a picture up of their dateless 1916 with some key points on that coin highlighted and everyone thinks that's what all dateless 1916s are going to be identical to is silly and wrong. If you contact eBay saying it's not the real deal, I think you should reconsider that sort of egoism, and stepping on someone else's business, unless and until you are an expert on 1916 SLQs and grade them professionally - and have it in hand so you can actually assess it. You don't think it's legit, don't buy it, but don't try and tell everyone who has an authenticated PCGS or other top 4 TPG coin that it's not legitimate because you saw a picture and based on some other picture you saw, it ain't right. All due respect, that's nonsense.

Here's the test of your mettle if you are determined that this is not a 1916 - buy it or negotiate to get hands on it, submit it to a grader of your own choosing, and if you're right, celebrate it, cash in on the authenticity guarantee and become - in the numismatic community - a celebrity for proving yourself right. Put up or shut up.

 

I understand the following attribution points for these- the 1916 has two main focal points to tell it apart from a 1917.

The first being Liberty's head. the 1916 has one distinct curl, and one curl barely visible, even on mint-state examples.

The second would be the gown near the feet. On a 1916, the gown connects at the foot, the 1917 doesn't.

No image on the PCGS on-line cert and the listed ones are so low resolution really hard to see; curl is blurred but the gown appears separate, but not sure how anyone can be positive from this...



I don't collect the series so $1800 is beyond my desire for one or to prove a point, although I did spend close for an early large cent counterfeit in a genuine slab but that is another story.

 

Thing is, it's not just "somebody" who put up a picture. These are well-known pickup points, widely documented. As far as I can tell from the posted photos, they indicate that this is a 1917 coin.

Are you saying that PCGS does not make mistakes? Sounds like a good premise for another 44-page thread...

 

I think we know all 4 "top" TPGs do; the one main positive in my opinion of having one authenticated is the guarantee. All 4 guarantee authenticity but I believe PCGS is the only one that guarantees attributions as well. Not looking for another "44-page thread" though!

 

The issue with the PCGS guarantee is that they could try to say that it’s a “mechanical error,” in which case someone could be left holding the bag. This is why it’s imperative to confirm that any attributions made by the TPG are correct (i.e., “buy the coin, not the holder”). Blindly trusting any TPG is a bad idea, as is refusing to question coins in their holders, as they are certainly not infallible.

The differences outlined in the OP are not just unique to the two specific coins in the picture, but are different characteristics that are known pickup points for 1916 and 1917 quarters. The designs used for the two dates were slightly different, and as such, the coins are slightly different, even when extremely worn. For example, weak shield rivets, weak/excuse wall lines, the head breaking into the beading, etc. means the coin is a 1916, while strong shield rivets, strong incuse wall lines, head not breaking into the beading, etc. means the coin is a 1917. This can be seen on worn coins where the date is still visible. See below for examples of where the date is still visible, but the pickup points still hold true:

Examples of 1916 quarters:

• https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/465084/1916-Standing-Liberty-Quarter-PCGS-G-04
• https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/483640/1916-Standing-Liberty-Quarter-PCGS-G-04
• https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/827691/1916-Standing-Liberty-Quarter-PCGS-G-06

Examples of 1917 quarters:

• https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/11889/1917-Standing-Liberty-Quarter-Type-1-ANACS-G-06
• https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/162363/1917-Standing-Liberty-Quarter-Type-1-ANACS-G-04
• https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1021541/1917-Standing-Liberty-Quarter-Type-1-NGC-VG-Details

These coins reaffirm the diagnostic points outlined on the dateless coins in the OP.

Both the OP PCGS coin and the referenced ICG coin exhibit strong shield rivets (which are the most readily apparent of all diagnostics, even with poor pictures) and incuse wall lines, which clinches them as 1917 quarters. Ultimately, if the coin’s diagnostics are saying “1917,” it doesn’t matter if the TPG says it’s “1916,” it’s still a 1917.

 

I emailed them about it last time. They said without it in their possession there wasn't anything they could do. But I have seen invalid certs before. I don't know why they wouldn't.

 

I can show you another attribution mistake pcgs made. I bought this coin last year. The designation on it was small stars. There is 2 auction histories on the coin. Stacks and bowers and heritage. Both histories say this is a large stars incorrectly attributed by pcgs. I returned the coin to the seller si was seeking a true small stars. He realized i was right and sent it back to pcgs to get it fixed. No they don't guarantee attributions and do make mistakes. These varieties aren't similar. This really was a big mistake on their part.

 

It seems to me that PCGS needs some good QA people. Yes, they're only human, and humans make errors, but in the numismatic and philatelic realm, mistakes like these are inexcusable. More than one expert needs to confirm varieties like these.

 

PCGS (as well as NGC, ANACS and ICG) have excellent QA people, and they have procedures for multiple reviewers on tough call coins like dateless 1916s. They put a guarantee on it and they'll lose a lot if they screw up on something like this and it gets out in the public - their reputation is their business. So all this talk based on "I have reviewed a picture and know the details of 1916s..." seems ill advised (me too, and I own one, and I couldn't possibly ascertain whether this PCGS is really a 1916, and neither can you unless you've got hands on and have assessed others - in hand). I find this passion to dismiss the coin as genuine rather bizarre. I believe it's authentic, if you don't, please buy it or arrange for the buyer to let you get hands on it and have it assessed by someone at least as qualified at a big four TPG SLQ grader. Otherwise I think it's a fool's errand to complain to eBay or the seller. How would you feel if someone contacted you about a genuine graded coin you had for sale and told you it wasn't authentic, based on their feelings about some pictures? I'd be annoyed, I think anyone would be.

 

All I know is, when I message the seller about the coin he takes it right down. He even knows its fake or why wouldn't he leave it up?
Say you are selling yours, and I message you and I say hey your coin is a 1917. Do you take it down because I insinuate that? No you leave it up because you know. But this guy, twice now has taken it down immediately. All I'm asking you to do is think? It's free

 

I fear that some folks would find it intimidating to be accused of peddling a fake and maybe pull the auction and check with PCGS or some other authority. I might do that. My reputation is important to me. Would you like to be accused of peddling a fake? I'm just saying I wouldn't and I don't think most people would. It's got a PCGS certification and the number matches to a 1916 SLQ. I believe it's authentic until PCGS or some other authority with the coin in hand says it ain't, and given that it's certified, I'm 99% sure that's not possible because it's real. Do you think PCGS is wrong about major coins a lot? I don't think so, none of the big TPGs are. Again, do they make mistakes? Sure. Are mistakes on major coins common? No, they are rare.

 

I think someone cracked it out of an 1917 slab, put it in their wallet until the date couldn’t be read anymore and then submitted it again as a 1916 SLQ. See? Now we’ll have a 44-page thread :-D



PS: Just kidding

 

the pickup points for dateless 1916 and 1917 T1 quarters are well known and outlined above. To me the coin in the OP shows a thin top hair curl, not thick; and a second one below it; the shield rivets are bold; the sash does not have a clear crease; the bulkhead lines are still visible, and the bottom of the gown curls up instead of spreading out and touching the ankle. All signs point to it being a 1917. I think PCGS made a mistake. They happen, even to experts.

 

We're all entitled to our opinions, but I think I'm going to go with PCGS on this one. Take a look at some of the graded 1916s on eBay to see how closely they match up with that picture everyone always pulls out to assess dateless 1916s that's in the first post. The PCGS VG8 that's up looks like a slightly nicer version of the same coin that's being debated here - the date is clearly visible but the same shield rivets are bold - etc. If you didn't see the date on that, would you think it's a 1917 type 1? Not all 1916s look like that one that everyone uses to assess 1916s. Anyway, fun debate.

 

Let's look at apples to apples then. Here is a coin in the same grade as the subject of this thread, I would argue that it is much more similar to the image showing the 1916 diagnostics than it is to the subject coin .
https://coins.ha.com/itm/standing-l...0-3540.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
If you want to see the Heritage large images.

 

Not sure I follow the reasoning here; mistakes on major coins are so rare this can't be one?

I wonder if the 1836 Gobrecht dollar would be considered major? Of the 8 documented struck counterfeits (which includes my collection example) 7 are TPG certified as genuine with 2 sold through a major auction house.

And in my meager collection are 15 struck counterfeits all authenticated and certified genuine; I realize 15 out of a gajillion submitted is low, but I would say 15 too many...

 

Reading PCGS Guarantee I wonder if the difference between a 1916 and 1917 dateless would be "obvious " to the extent of negating the guarantee. Its fairly big money too (not really litigate big money but ...) that said looking at diagnostics I have serious questions and would likely take a pass

For me just look at PCGS that shield seem very wrong the rivets don't even seem clear on MS full head examples yet they are clear on they low end example ?