Guess the grade and slab! 1916 Standing Liberty Quarter :

[James_OldeTowne]

What's your guess? The image is dead-on accurate, and yes, it has been encapsulated.

 

 

JUMBO pic

 

James

[RGT]

Ok, I'll play.

 

First, the coin looks cleaned. The strike is pretty good on the head and shield but the leg is a bit flat. I think I see a trace of wear on the reverse but it looks better than the obverse.

 

I'd say either PCGS AU55 or NGC VF20.

 

I'd probably call it AU50.

[gpnyc]

It does look rather dull, on the obverse especially. I would guess that its in an ANACS slab. AU details, cleaned, net XF-45.

[braddick]

It does look rather dull, on the obverse especially. I would guess that its in an ANACS slab. AU details, cleaned, net XF-45.

I agree it's NET but will guess it's ANACS AU Details, VF30 Net. (Looks slightly polished/altered surfaces/cleaned/whizzed or something like that...)

[melmcbee]

xf-40 obverse

au-50 reverse

total xf 45

[chinook]

AU net AU

[thebeav]

It does look rather dull, on the obverse especially. I would guess that its in an ANACS slab. AU details, cleaned, net XF-45.

 

I'll go with this also......but.......

I WANT THE COIN !!!

 

Paul

[gmarguli]

Given the way I've seen the grading services grade these, I'd not be at all surprised to find it in an AU58 slab. I do think it has been worked on, so maybe they net graded it to a lower AU grade.

[Hoot]

Given the way I've seen the grading services grade these, I'd not be at all surprised to find it in an AU58 slab. I do think it has been worked on, so maybe they net graded it to a lower AU grade.

 

Agree.

 

I want the coin as an album stuffer.

 

Hoot

[truthteller]

XF 40

 

 

 

 

 

TRUTH

[goose3]

45 was my intial thought.

[EZ_E]

xf-40 obverse

au-50 reverse

total xf 45

 

You go, Mel! That is exactly what I would grade it.

[Bruceswar]

xf 40 net vf 35

[reid1836]

My guess would be an encapsulated copy. The field above the eagle on the reverse in way too rough for the details on the eagle.

[EZ_E]

My guess would be an encapsulated copy. The field above the eagle on the reverse in way too rough for the details on the eagle.

 

I'm not sure about that. I have an AU 1917 Type I that looks the same.

[HaydenTubbs]

Well,it's either a ACG MS-67 or a SEGS AU-50 "cleaned"

[CarolinaCollector]

I'll guess -

 

AU-55 Cleaned - Net XF-45.

[Woodwind-migration]

My guess is AU-50.

 

If it's in an ANACS holder, net EF-40 for cleaning.

[James_OldeTowne]

Thanks to everyone for your replies. Before you look at my next link, bear in mind how different a coin can look depending on how it's imaged. When you see the answer right here , you'll notice that the weird surface quality - a result of being whizzed and subsequently artificially toned - doesn't show up well in the original images, nor is particularly well-described.

 

There's an interesting story behind this coin. I purchased it specifically for resale to a particular client for his album collection. At the customer's request, the coin has been sent to a professional coin doctor to have the gunk stripped back off the surfaces, and the coin artificially toned, because as it looks now, or as it would look stripped down, it would look ridiculous in the client's set, which is comprised of otherwise original coins in VF-XF condition.

 

What is your opinion of this strategy? Bear in mind that it really is a dull, rather ugly and obviously problematic coin right now - damaged goods so to speak. But it IS a REAL 1916, and it has, in our opinion, very strong AU details. The same sale had an NCS "AU Details, improperly cleaned" coin with substantially less detail, and much uglier surface quality for only the same price. In addition, an NGC AU-58 in the same sale had only the equivalent level of detail (though obviously better surfaces).

 

I once had this same coin doctor restore a 1923-S SLQ that was lightly corroded and horribly whizzed and retoned, and the finished product was amazing - still visibly not original, but suitable to fit into most collections. To this day, that coin resides proudly in my personal set.

 

James

[EZ_E]

James,

 

You are consistently one of the best posters around! Your threads are always educational and informative. Thanks, sincerely!

 

I couldn't see any metal displacement on the photos. Can anyone else? So, is the rough field on the obverse from whizzing?

[sadysta1]

I would say ACG AU55 (problem free) assuming it's not one of those 2" diameter copies

[gmarguli]

the coin has been sent to a professional coin doctor to have the gunk stripped back off the surfaces, and the coin artificially toned, because as it looks now, or as it would look stripped down, it would look ridiculous in the client's set, which is comprised of otherwise original coins in VF-XF condition.

 

What is your opinion of this strategy? Bear in mind that it really is a dull, rather ugly and obviously problematic coin right now - damaged goods so to speak. But it IS a REAL 1916, and it has, in our opinion, very strong AU details.

 

I don't think there is anything wrong with working on the coin as long as it isn't going to be sold as original.

[Hoot]

At the customer's request, the coin has been sent to a professional coin doctor to have the gunk stripped back off the surfaces, and the coin artificially toned, because as it looks now, or as it would look stripped down, it would look ridiculous in the client's set, which is comprised of otherwise original coins in VF-XF condition.

 

What is your opinion of this strategy?

 

This is a fine strategy. It's a great way to fill a VERY difficult hole in a collection without sacrificing life and limb. When he's ready to pass on his collection, hopefully this history will be made known. But as I see it, this is as legitimate as antique or painting restoration. We need people in numismatics who are adept at this but who are ethical in their practice.

 

Hoot

[James_OldeTowne]

EZ_E, the "roughness" you see on the reverse is characteristic of all 1916 die marriages, and most 1917 Type One reverses (including D and S mints). It is actually the way the coin was intended to look - in some ways comparable to the rugged look of the contemporary Buffalo nickel coins. I have a customer who owns an absolutely mind-boggling 1917 Type 1 in an NGC MS-67, and it has the crispest reverse "roughness" I've ever seen - just as you might expect on a proof! So yes, you should expect high grade Type 1 to have that "look".

 

I should have the coin back in a couple of weeks, and will definitely post the results here.

 

James

[Woodwind-migration]

Hey, I was close! I didn't actually guess it was in an ANACS slab, and I said "cleaned" instead of whizzed.

 

Still, it's a beautiful coin that I wouldn't at all mind having in my collection.

[reid1836]

You may have a point EZ_E. I`ve just never seen one with these features that was a genuine piece. If it the answer turns out to be a genuine example and is certified by a reputable top grading service, then let me be the first to admit that I was wrong and extend my apologies. I will certainly file away these diagnostics for future reference. Because surely it would not be unique to only the one piece, ergo others must exist that may have been deemed copies or counterfeits because of these features and are golden opportunities.

[EZ_E]

At the customer's request, the coin has been sent to a professional coin doctor to have the gunk stripped back off the surfaces, and the coin artificially toned, because as it looks now, or as it would look stripped down, it would look ridiculous in the client's set, which is comprised of otherwise original coins in VF-XF condition.

 

What is your opinion of this strategy?

 

This is a fine strategy. It's a great way to fill a VERY difficult hole in a collection without sacrificing life and limb. When he's ready to pass on his collection, hopefully this history will be made known. But as I see it, this is as legitimate as antique or painting restoration. We need people in numismatics who are adept at this but who are ethical in their practice.

 

Hoot

 

I agree whole-heartedly with these statements. Actually, I think that it is a decent looking coin. However, if there is noticeable metal displacement then I wouldn't want it.

 

I think that "coin doctor" is not necessarily a dirty word, it all depends upon the motive. Hey, if they can take a butt-ugly coin or holed coin and improve its appearance then that is not a bad thing, in my opinion. However, if these coins are sold raw at a premium then that crosses the line into the unethical.

[Leothelion]

I see that BB has a 30 inch wide screen monitor on sale for $2600!

 

Leo

[Elbesaar]

I have seen enough of 1916 quarters to tell that this is an AU 55 ... the coin really needs to be inspected in person to see if its been cleaned or not. I'd even favorably compare it to most of the FH's AU's I've seen recently.

 

No clue as to which TPG company graded it...