Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Lehigh96, post: 486620, member: 15309&quot;]It is true that NGC requires three different types, but breaking out the 1916 from the 1917 T1 would actually create a 4th type.&nbsp; I can only think of one really good reason why they are not separate.&nbsp; The 1916 SLQ due to its mintage and extreme rarity is not really a collectible coin.&nbsp; By making the 1916 it&#039;s own type, the likely result would be many incomplete collections.</p><p><br /></p><p>Having said that, NGC recently added the 1792 Half Disme to the USA type set which is ludicrous.&nbsp; The 1792 Half Disme has an unknown mintage of less than 2000 and is exceedingly rare costing over $10,000 in the lowest possible grades.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>So if they are going to include that coin in the type set, there should be no reason not to have the 1916 SLQ as it&#039;s own type. Although they have the right to construct their type set requirements anyway they want, I just want them to be consistent.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in