My first GTG, a 1924 SLQ.

Thanks.. You will figure out pretty quickly which coins are cleaned. Get a blast white looking early date (even if it is fairly common) in an older series, and if it is raw like that, usually it is either cleaned, or overdipped so that its value is seriously diminished. There is a reason that one was a lot cheaper, and not in a holder, with a straight grade. LSQ series usually tone up with a grey patina, even if they are MS. To get that white look, either it was stored away by a collector in some air resistant storage, or it was cleaned or dipped. If you see luster diminished, that is a dead giveaway to a heavy dip, or cleaning.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

definitely has the bright whiteness I associate with dipping. I see no hairlines to diagnose cleaning, and of course with static images one can't see luster breaks to decide on AU vs MS. And, if MS, can't judge the luster to say if it's low medium or high MS. So I hope the buyer enjoys the coin and if sent in for grading will share the results with us!

 

NO luster diminishment on this one, I'm afraid. I have been fortunate in my collecting days to come up with two real bargains. The first of these should be arriving soon from its NGC session, the second which, IMO, deserves to be certified, too, is this one—though this is something I generally think is a waste of money. I really don't plan on selling any of my coins during my lifetime, so it just means I have to look at these through a plastic veil.

 

So, why slab them? Keep them as raw, if you are sure you are not going to ever sell them. Contradictory thinking.

 

Same here.

 

A bit too much glare on the obverse to make out much (except that it's not full head); if you're so inclined, try shooting it with the light offset a little more so it's not reflecting straight into the camera, and maybe shoot it against a lighter background so it doesn't come out overexposed. The camera you're using now should do the trick.

The reverse photo is a little out-of-focus, but the luster looks nice in that shot.

 

The SLQ on the right is a straight grade coin and exhibits very light toning around “Liberty” and the date. The SLQ on the left certainly displays the battleship grey look that others have mentioned. But SLQ’s can certainly present blast white. And they are some kind of beautiful when they do.

 

That is hilarious.
I never said it was spelled incorrectly. I only stated that TRVST is NOT Latin for TRUST. (you stated "TRVST is the Latin spelling of TRUST"). I replied the Latin spelling for TRUST is FIDUCIA... and LATIN does IN FACT use the letter U. Otherwise how would you spell "UNUM". It is the ROMANS who didn't use the letter U.
You were confusing LATIN for ROMAN. Although practically all Roman is Latin, not all Latin is Roman. Three years of Latin taught me a lot... you should study it if you're going to discuss it.
I also commented "So, "Is it spelled incorrectly?"... not according to the designer.", and basically agreeing with you that it is NOT "misspelled", according to the designer of the coin.
So chill out and take a moment to comprehend what is written.

 

Have you actually taken a look at the reverse of a SLQ? It clearly displays E PLVRIBVS VNVM.

I think you're confusing spelling with letterforms, part of what folks today think of as "fonts".

Until the Middle Ages, there was no letter written as U, only V (descended from Y). That same letterform represented both the vowel we call U and the consonant we call V (although pronunciations have certainly changed over the centuries). That's why the letter we pronounce "double-you" is shaped like two V's stuck together, not two U's.

J similarly didn't separate from I until about the same time, although the details of its evolution are different.

 

Jeff,
I was talking about TRVST, which is a Romanesque spelling of TRUST. Collecting Nut said that was the LATIN spelling. No, that is incorrect. The word for Trust in Latin is FIDUCIA. He then went off on a rant about how all these books say blah, blah, blah, while my only concern was he had stated TRVST was LATIN, which it was NOT. That's all. Look back, and re-read.
There is a difference between "correct spelling" and a designer's concept for a "design". Just like the 1883 Liberty head nickel… do you say "VEE cents" or "5 cents"? That is design...

 

The surfaces look off to me. Also put me in the slider camp.

 

https://coinsite.com/why-does-my-peace-dollar-say-in-god-we-trvst-and-not-in-god-we-trust/

 

Fun thread on Latin v Roman