1918/7 standing liberty quarter 1 1

[Chapman13wired]

How do I go about getting it graded?

[Mr.Bill347]

Welcome to the forum. Your coin, although in great condition, would not warrant the grading fees associated with having it encapsulated. The graded coin if graded as a VF would only be worth $25. I would recommend self slabbing it and keeping it. Others may chime in and suggest otherwise. I am not a prolific  coin grader and it is just MHO.

good luck

[berlineagle]

If real it is an overdate, and would get a Details grade. But I don't think it's real, looks off.

[RWB]

Counterfeit.

[Greenstang]

I was going to admonish you for holding the coin in your hand but seeing it is a counterfeit,   
lit doesn’t really matter now. Date is wrong, Mint Mark too big and in wrong location.

[Sandon]

    Welcome to the NGC chat board.

    First of all, never hold a coin that you believe to have collector value in your bare hands, except, if you must, by its edges! The oils in your skin can cause discoloration, and coins become worn from rubbing against any surface.

    Genuine 1918-S, 8 over 7 Standing Liberty quarters are quite valuable, which has led to the production of numerous counterfeits, one of which your coin appears almost certain to be. Compare your coin with the photos of the genuine example shown in the NGC Coin Explorer: 1918/7 S 25C MS | Coin Explorer | NGC (ngccoin.com). The blobby granular surface of your piece is in itself highly suspicious. All of these coins were struck from the same die pair and should match in every detail. Yours appears quite different in terms of such details as the shapes of the "S" mintmark and the numerals in the date, and the details in the shield, to name a few. 

    If you still think the coin may be genuine, I suggest that you show the coin to at least one experienced dealer in your area, and if after getting the dealer's opinion you still want to submit the coin to a third-party grading service such as NGC for authentication and, secondarily, grading you do so through a dealer. See Find Coin Shops & Dealers | Coin Dealer Locator | NGC (ngccoin.com). If you insist on submitting it yourself, please review the various topics under the "Submit" tab on the NGC home page. Submission will require that you have a paid NGC membership (annual fee at least $95), a $40-$80 grading fee depending on the tier you select, a $10 processing fee, and a $28 return shipping fee, as well as your cost of shipping the coin to NGC.

 

[Chapman13wired]

Matches up good when I compare it.

[Greenstang]

Quote

Matches up good when I compare it

Then go ahead and get it certified and let us know the results.

Sandon has supplied you with instructions and cost to get it graded.

[JT2]

this coin is not real it is a novelty item

[Sandon]

   You might want to check the additional photos of genuine pieces on PCGS Coinfacts at https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1918-7-s-25c/5726. Here is a closeup of the date and mintmark area of a genuine piece from that source:

   Here for comparison is a cropped photo of the same area on your piece:

   The "S" mintmark has a different shape without serifs on the ends and is in a lower position in relation to the pedestal and straighter than on the genuine coin. The "1"s in the date are too thin and the "9" is completely closed, also unlike the genuine coin. The overdated "8" isn't a match either. There also appears to be a lightly impressed additional "S" beneath the left lower star that is not present on the genuine coin!  I'll revise my previous opinion from "almost certainly" counterfeit to definitely counterfeit.

   If you want to spend well over a hundred dollars for a third-party grading service to tell you what we are telling you without charge, that is your choice.

[powermad5000]

Welcome to the forum!

Of the differences noted by @Sandon, the first one to stick out to me was the "lumpy" surface on the obverse as well as it seems portions of the obverse also look like a partial lamination so to speak. It almost appears this counterfeit was created by a casting process and I would not doubt it to be a cheap pot metal alloy. 

It should weigh 6.25g. If you doubt us on here, I would take the advice and only spend the gas to drive to a local dealer and have it weighed and XRF tested if further doubt still exists. I think you will have your answer after that.

I hope you didn't pay the price guide value for a VF piece for this not so good fake and why you may be defending it. In fact I hope you didn't pay anything for it, not even 1 cent.

 

 

Edited November 29, 2023 by powermad5000

[EagleRJO]

On 11/29/2023 at 11:35 AM, Chapman13wired said:

Matches up good when I compare it.

I think you need to look again, as I agree with Sandon and others that your coin is a counterfeit and does not match genuine examples, particularly with the overall appearance as well as the date and mintmark in particular.  Sandon provided a link to the CoinFacts example, and you can also compare it to the NGC VarietyPlus 1918-S 8/7 25C FS-101 at this link ... NGC VarietyPlus 1918/7 S 25C ... like that shown on the attached side-by-side date and mintmark comparison.

If you recently purchased this coin I would try to get a refund and not submit the coin, as that would not only cost you extra money but may also take you beyond any refund period if that is still available.  Note that if it was purchased on eBay you may still be able to get a refund if the seller is unresponsive but time is limited.

Edited November 30, 2023 by EagleRJO

[dprince1138]

Here is a PGCS XF40 example, but counterfeiters have become very adept.  The fact that your coin is of a decent grade (XF?) makes it questionable, as even PCGS does not have a high grade coin.

I am not tryng to be critical, but there are many stores on etsy that specialize in counterfeit coins and I have seen a number of feedback from coin dealers who said they should have looked at the description closer.

 

 

 

[dprince1138]

Here is the 1st example that I came upon on etsy, for $19.95.

 

[Coinbuf]

Obvious counterfeit.

[dprince1138]

Here is a nicer image from NGC.

[JKK]

One good tell here is that the shield and head on the phony piece are fully "struck" (in reality, cheaply cast), and not worn down. Full strikes are hard enough to find, but when found--and not worn down--one would expect nice clean fields, not this grainy business. Nope, it's not real; it's a counterfeit, and a pretty lousy one.

[EagleRJO]

On 11/29/2023 at 6:36 PM, JKK said:

Full strikes are hard enough to find, but when found--and not worn down--one would expect nice clean fields, not this grainy business.

Besides the date and mintmark being off, that grainy or granular appearance with the full shield also didn't look right.  So I think that was a good clarification of what a number of us were seeing.

In addition, as a general comment, there is no reason to continuously post multiple additional examples as the ones Sandon and I posted or linked are more than sufficient and widely recognized for comparison.  This likely will just overwhelm or confuse the op when no additional examples were requested, just to try and appear useful when it's not.