Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Jaelus, post: 2091762, member: 46237&quot;]Take the standing liberty quarter for example. The type II coin was considered flawed by the mint due to how the raised date wore quickly, and it was revised with the strikes of 1925. Can a &quot;flawed&quot; mint state type II SLQ achieve the same grade as a type III? Should all type I and type II standing liberty quarters get details grades because they were struck with flawed dies?</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I think you answered your own question here. It&#039;s clear you think the coin is attractive and the die crack adds eye appeal. Why then should it detract from the grade? The TPGs don&#039;t seem to think it should. The market doesn&#039;t seem to think it should. The only thing it may affect is the value of the coin, but that is highly dependent on the buyer. Many collectors would be interested in that coin specifically for the die crack.</p><p><br /></p><p>As for representing the coin as the designer intended. Take the standing liberty quarter again. The coin certainly doesn&#039;t represent the coin as the designer intended. Take a look at MacNeil&#039;s intended design for the coin.</p><p><img src="http://www.usacoinbook.com/encyclopedia/coin-designers/hermon-a-macneil/macneils-original-standing-liberty-quarter-with-dolphins.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p>The obverse especially was redesigned significantly by the mint, and then redesigned yet again in 1917. Should we downgrade all type I SLQs a step and all type IIs two steps for deviation from the designer&#039;s intent?[/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