Another newbie post, in my quest to educate myself about coins! On eBay, this 1929 SLQ is described as having a bare right breast, but my understanding is that only the 1916 and part of 1917 had the exposed breast, all other mintings had armor on Liberty. Is that possibly remnants of armor showing on this coin? It is pretty worn, so I can't tell for sure, but that is my impression. Here is the link to the ebay listing in case the photo doesn't show up well. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&Item=380119497461&Category=11966&_trkparms=algo%3DLVI%26its%3DI%26otn%3D2 I'm enjoying studying about the different features on different mintings of the same coin, and I just started learning about the SLQ, so this caught my eye. I've bought a few coins on eBay but I'm trying to be very cautious before buying. This one is pretty but seems to be cleaned to be that worn yet bright, and also rather pricey for the amount of wear. Is that a valid estimation? Along with the incorrect description, I wouldn't buy from this seller if they don't know their coins any better than that! So am I on the right track to be wary of this coin? Thanks all!! :smile
I agree with you. The "apparent" breast is just from wear. And cleaning! Good coin to stay away from. That seller has set himself up for a big fat neg.
I agree...this coin looks that way because of both wear and cleaning. If you look at Liberty's right shoulder...you can see a little bit of the armor going over her shoulder...that would not be there if this was a type 1 coin. Plus, it has the reverse stars that a type 2 would have. One more thing too, in your research you might see a "type 3" SLQ. Some people consider all SLQs with the armored breast to be type 2...some break type 2 into 2 categories. Beginning in 1925, the date was recessed and some consider this the start of type 3. So, based on that...this would be a type 3 SLQ.
Oh wow, I didn't know that, I did read about the types 1 & 2, and about the recessed date change in '25, but didn't know that could then be called a type 3 classification. Must have dozed off while reading that part in my Red Book at midnight (great book, but it tends to cure insomnia late at night!). Great info, thanks!!
I don't think red book calls it "type 3"...I just think they make reference to the 2 types and then comment on the recessed date. But, I have seen other sources that do. So, I just wanted to say that in case you spotted that somewhere and didn't know what it meant. I don't know how common it is, but I have seen it multiple times.
The greysheet make no mention of differences at all. The Red Book sort of treats it like a subset of Variety 2. Coin Values definitely mentions the Recessed Date type but doesn't label any of them "types". And the NGC Registry Type Set requires all three types.
If you want to get picky, there's really 4 types of SLQs, and if you want to be Ultra-picky, 5 types. 1) 1916. The 1916 uses a different obverse design than the 1917, this is how dateless 1916 SLQs can be identified and slabbed. 2) 1917 with no stars under eagle and bare breast. 3) 1917-1923 4) 1924. The 1924s had, in a somewhat vain attempt to prevent date wear, modifications to the font used for the date. 5) 1925-1930, the recessed date coins.
The 16s are pretty widely known to be identifiable by design (Head is closer to the denticles, only one piece of hair at the back of Liberty's head, etc) but the 24 isn't really considered to be a separate variety except by real SLQ mental cases. Like myself
I knew they could be identified but I had always assumed it was die characteristics not a design change.
This is one of the prime reasons I come here. I don't know if I'll ever need this knowledge, but I've got it now. And better off for having it. Thanks
Just the same for me ! It will be highly efficient for inducing a new Coin Topical Addiction :devil: thanks
Now, how can I like an entire Thread.. No crapola answers. THUMBS up to each and everyone of you! LIKE LIKE LIKE!!!!
Ya don't see rld14 in these parts much anymore. Kind of dropped off the edge some time ago. Too bad, as I enjoyed reading many of his posts. And Doug? The necro-revivers done caught ya. LOL
