Disappointed with 100th anniversary SLQ

Thanks for sharing your knowledge and insight. I'm new here and appreciate your feedback.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Look at the history run of ASE's. The old method ASE's (1986-2007) more accurately mimic the "look" of Walker halves. The later ones done digitally (2008 on) are more technically perfect but have a totally different look.

 

Mine is going to be attempted to be delivered tomorrow, but here's what I think you are seeing on the reverse.

The luster is caused by flow lines developing in the die, caused by the metal flowing against the die during striking. With the very soft metal and thinner (right?) planchet than a quarter, you are seeing areas opposite the devices of the other die not showing much metal flow, as the opposite die is taking in a significant part of the planchet there. The difference in the die wear between the parts of the reverse field opposite the devices and the parts opposite the field are also more pronounced due to the thin planchet.

 

I believe what you are seeing on the reverse is "ghosting" of the design from the other side.

 

So the mint produced less than FSB gold Mercuries, less than FH SLQ. Did you really think the government would produce top quality for such a small mark up? 1/10th of an ounce of gold for a higher mark up than a tenth-ounce eagle? Really, what did you expect from the SLQ? The mint doesn't care about grades, nor the FH/FSB distinction given by TPGs. They care about profits.

 

It looked FH to me...

 

I'll not claim to be a FH expert, I only own relatively few Standers, but it looks like what I thought was a FH. Why so few Standers? Still working on my last few BU Washingtons, but I'm close enough to concentrate there.

 

Make sure the defects you're seeing aren't on the capsule. If you rotate the coin the cloudy area to the right of the shield disappears. To be sure I took out the white gloves, removed the capsule and checked the coin with my digital microscope. I couldn't find any problems. I know 24k gold is softer and prone to les than perfect strikes (I also collect the gold buffalo) but I honestly can't find any problem with this well done coin. The mint did a good job, on this coin anyway, I can't see any problems.

 

That could well be! And the other thing it could be is an internal reflection from the INSIDE SURFACE of the capsule reflecting back on the coin itself.

 

One sour note, it arrived today via UPS and the mint or whoever does their distribution, didn't do a good packing job. The coin box was just placed into the mailing box without any packing, so it floated around inside the packing box. A little damage to the mint box, but the coin inside was well protected.

I collect SLQ and my gold one definitely has a full head strike.

 

I had one or two of those. The fulfillment center may be tasked via volume, not security.

 

I was hoping for a little more nipple and shield seems weak. Sure doesn't have that clean look like regular eagles.

 

Agreed! The strike on mine is some what soft. I have already expressed my concern what the "hazed" fields. Over all my coin did not meet my expectations.

 

There is no "Eye Appeal" with loop or microscope. I got three and I'm gonna sell 2 fast and get a good 1917 quarter and half with the money.

 

I like the fact that the coin was in 100% gold, but that does effect the strike. Pure gold is extremely soft and as such doesn't strike up as sharply as 90% gold, such as the Gold Eagle. It was a small coin, that too added to the problem of proper gold flow as the die came down.

Classic gold coins were to be used in circulation, that why they were in 90% gold, to add strength and durability to the coin.

By the way, congress passed legislation that in effect could change the composition of American coinage. To paraphrase, silver coinage shall be AT LEAST 90% silver, this replaces the wording that silver coinage WILL BE 90% silver. The silver for American coins comes from American refiners and they produce .999 fine. The mint then sends the silver to Australia so that it is refined down to .90 fine. It will be cheaper for the mint to make their silver coins in .999 rather than pay to ship to the Perth Mint, pay to have copper added, and then pay for the shipment back, I predict that soon those Silver Proof Sets and Commemoratives will be .999 fine.

 

Don't underestimate the influence of two things the Mint does now that they did NOT a century ago.

1) The hubs are now created digitally with software, and not by a reducing lathe from a galvano.

2) They literally sandblast the hubs and/or dies to give them an "enhanced" matte finish. On the mirror proofs, they do this while masking the fields, but on these coins, the whole surface gets it. On the large close-ups above, the effect is obvious.

 

I just received an email from the U.S. Mint. They've lifted the limit on the Gold Liberty Standing Quarter. Guess they didn't sell as well as they thought they would. I knew less people would be able to afford the higher price for the LSQ than the Gold Mercury Dime.

 

I know this is not the place to ask, but how do you start a new topic?

 

At the top of the page you should see something that says HOME >FORUMS >COIN FORUMS >US COIN FORUMS.

Click on US Coin Forums. On the page that takes you to there will be a little box on the right that says POST NEW THREAD. Click that and you are ready to go.

 

I was really excited for this series and just can't believe what a poor job the mint did with these. I was really considering buying one of these even though I missed the Mercury but after seeing the pictures in this thread I'm going to pass and I really wanted to like these. Really disappointing.