FA: 1917 Standing Liberty Quarter AU or better
dwhe...@ipns.com
would call AU 55 or better condition. A steal at current price.
Daniel B. Wheeler
dwhe...@ipns.com
Sorry, forgot to include location:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220461524283
Daniel B. Wheeler
Thomas A.
I am not a professional grader, but I think you might want to re-evaluate a
grade of AU. Compare it with your other SQL, 1928, that you grade only F,
which is a bit generous as well.
Thomas A.
Oops. That's SLQ, not SQL (unless you're into databases, that is.)
Peter
If it is AU, then perhaps it is the lens on the camera that is worn
flat.
Yeomans grading for the SLQ (there are of course many opinions
possible) mentions that to qualify as G-4:
"Date and lettering legible. Top of date worn. Liberty's right leg
and toes worn off. Much wear evident on left leg and drapery lines."
From the pictures in the item linked, the toes appear worn off, the
top of the date is worn although some of the other lettering might be
possible to grade a little higher. I would say G-4 to G-5.
Mr. Jaggers
Unfortunately, while I do not consider the coin in question to be anywhere
near AU, I have seen the likes of it in "respectable" VF20 holders, and
examples with half or less of the date visible in F12 holders. Coins that I
was able to buy as F12 in the 1960s and 1970s will readily slab at VF30-35
today. Sad.
James the Old-Timer
Thomas A.
Indeed. Shiny is not always good. You say "The head lacks hair details to
make it a full head". Hmm. The head lacks detail to make it a head.
mazorj
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:h5ino...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Inflation is everywhere. Money, academic grades, coin grades, job titles,
egos...
- mazorj
Acting Assistant Deputy Undersecretary of Factoids
linxlvr
I'll guess F12 - F15, using Photograde as i always do. I also am guessing
cleaned. Do I get the prize?
--
dw
Ira
Dan,
There are some pretty sharp numismatists on this group, and in your
description, you describe the Standing Liberty Quarter as AU to Unc.
That coin is no better than Fine-15, but if you were really lucky, a
grading company might grade it as VF-20. However, the coin looks
cleaned from the photos. That would preclude it from being graded at
all, but in that condition, it would be cost prohibitive to go to the
expense to find out. To call it AU-55 in your post is to insult most
of us here who know better. Frankly, YOU should know better. Get the
ANA grading guide if you don't know how to grade. Otherwise, you might
try salting the foot that's in your mouth. Might taste better.
Ira
Mr. Jaggers
> On Aug 7, 5:13 pm, dwhee...@ipns.com wrote:
>> Currently with one bid, a 1917 Standing Liberty Quarter in what I
>> would call AU 55 or better condition. A steal at current price.
>>
>> Daniel B. Wheeler
>
> Dan,
>
> ANA grading guide if you don't know how to grade.
Ira, from what I've been seeing, there are some "name" slabbing companies
and no mean number of "name" dealers who desperately need to cleave to that
advice. In all fairness to Dan, he may have recently spent a day at a coin
show and was just imitating life as he saw it.
James
Ira
Jim,
You are oh too kind. The "N" and the "P" grading companies would
probably grade that coin VF20 and F15 respectively IF they decided it
had not been cleaned. I think the "I" grading service would concur
with one of the two aforementioned grading companies. I have no idea
what the "A" grading company would decide to bestow on that coin. But
the massive over reaching in grade that Mr Wheeler has postulated
deserves a stern verbal punishment. The latest ANA grading guide
reflects the loosening of some of the grading standards on some
series, but the grade that Wheeler has put into his description should
embarrass him. That's assuming he is capable of embarrassment.
Ira (not as kind as James the Benevolent)
Mr. Jaggers
The 6th edition of the ANA Grading book brazenly states on page 14 that
"this book *reports* the grading being used in the market place. It does
not *create* it."
Dan is part of the market place. While you and I may classify his grading
opinion as extreme, the general trend of the market place is in his
direction, not yours or mine. Ergo, Dan's grading may one day prevail and
be *reported* in an edition of the ANA Grading "Standards" that will be
published sometime after the Brown & Dunn generation has joined the Great
Majority.
If I had known you 50 years ago and told you that someday an Indian cent
with *no* letters of LIBERTY clear and readable would end up in the VF20
holder of a "respectable" grading company, would you have believed me?
James the Malevolent
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
I just bought a copy of David Bowers' brand new "Grading Coins By
Photographs" (apparently he couldn't get the rights to the name
"Photograde" back).
I am amazed and appalled at the "grade inflation" on the low end of
the spectrum. What passes for "AG" and "G" nowadays is pretty bad
stuff.
I have the remnants of many coin accumulations that I have handled in
the past and that I thought were too bad to resell. Type-wise, they
would be great coins if only they weren't in such pissy condition.
Gee, maybe I need to rethink.
Yes Oz, the OP needed to be chastised (and I am glad you did it), but
James is on the right track too. VAST chutzpah seems to be pretty
important in these coin matters.
BTW, I got the book from Borders with a 40% off list-price coupon.
Only $12.00-ish plus tax. Poor old Borders, can't imagine they're
gonna last until Christmas.
oly
Ira
I agree with this assessment. Twenty-five plus years ago, a MS63
would have been decribed as a gem MS65 whatever. Today, the top
grading company might describe as MS63 at best over most series, so
high grade coins have gotten more conservative grades. But
gradeflation seems to have occured at grades AU50 and lower in most if
not all series. As a consequence, I rarely ever buy a recently graded
Au50 for resale as it looks like an Ef40 or Ef45 to me. Coins graded
VF20 mostly look like Fine12 to these old eyes and as you wrote,
Good-4 looks like a Fair-2 to
me. It will be sad day indeed when Wheeler's misdescribed "AU-55" is
ever described as such by any grading guide.
Ira not Oz
Oly, I have not insulted you in months. Please accord me the same
courtesy. I thank you.
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ira, I considered that a friendly (enough) term, but if you don't, I
won't use it. Sorry. Oly
Thomas A.
$16.05. Fair price, I'd say.
Peter
>
> - Show quoted text -
I guess it isn't fully clear to me what is going on. Yeomans'
standards have not changed much since he published his first guide.
In inflating their grades I suspect that US collectors and third party
graders are treating themselves to a better view of their own
importance or at least the importance of US coins.
There are far more coins than coin collectors and more other coins
than US coins. At one time I thought that US coins were the best in
the world. The current issue appears to me to be junk. Will I ever
care whether a 2009 presidential dollar is MS-70 or merely fair? It
has virtually no intrinsic value and thus may only be of interest for
how much it will bring.
If respectable people allow their standards to shift, a change in the
market may shift them another way; it will not trouble me. When the
category of US coins (current as well as older) is seen as mostly junk
some other category may be more interesting to collectors.
Peter
>
> - Show quoted text -
Markets are not always efficient, grade inflation and currency
inflation are factors. Even so, it appears that Yeoman lists a G-4
from 1917 as $22 in their 2006 edition (latest I have). The coin
seems to have sold for $16.05 plus $7.50 for shipping (total of
$23.55) rather than the $175 Yoeman gives for an AU-55.
gogu
news:a8f76542-0072-448d...@p36g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Daniel,
here it's my PCGS graded AU55 Standing Liberty coin.
Please compare it (in what regards grading) with the coin you have on
auction:
http://s208.photobucket.com/albums/bb120/golanule/USA%20Circulation%20Coins/?action=view¤t=8813.jpg
rgrds
dlhii
>
>I guess it isn't fully clear to me what is going on. Yeomans'
>standards have not changed much since he published his first guide.
>In inflating their grades I suspect that US collectors and third party
>graders are treating themselves to a better view of their own
>importance or at least the importance of US coins.
>
>There are far more coins than coin collectors and more other coins
>than US coins. At one time I thought that US coins were the best in
>the world. The current issue appears to me to be junk. Will I ever
>care whether a 2009 presidential dollar is MS-70 or merely fair? It
>has virtually no intrinsic value and thus may only be of interest for
>how much it will bring.
>
>If respectable people allow their standards to shift, a change in the
>market may shift them another way; it will not trouble me. When the
>category of US coins (current as well as older) is seen as mostly junk
>some other category may be more interesting to collectors.
I'm real new at this (returning after a long absence) but I have seen
'slugs' command high dollar ($350) at some auctions I have been too.
One had a Morgan that you couldn't read the date with out a magnifier,
even then questionable. I would of only considered it silver...
I do have a question, if the past few months my eyesight in one eye.
Has anyone tried one of those USB magnifiers? The low end ones.
Peter
>
> - Show quoted text -
I haven't tried one and if the issue is that you have some difficulty
with your eyesight there might not be anyone else here with exactly
the same difficulty. Hence, you would be the best judge of its
advantages for your own use.
Still, a USB magnifier was a novel enough idea that I looked to see
what B&H had and noted that they have a feature rich device with a
$100+ price. Micro tools, by contrast has adequate jeweler's loupes
for $3. If you have a digital camera that can hook to a USB that
connects to your computer you might accomplish the same without
purchasing something else.
dlhii
Couple of very valid point and an idea I was thinking about also
Thank You
mazorj
"dlhii" <dl...@fake.net> wrote in message
news:j6h185pbdfo43k91d...@4ax.com...
Keep in mind that the low-end USB "microscope cameras" usually have cheap
lenses and are limited to the standard VGA resolution of 640 x 480 pixels at
16 or 256 colors. A file size of 1.2 meg usually is a sign of VGA
resolution. Bigger files may come from higher resolution or just from a
bigger color palette or the coding used to write the file.
There's a lot more that goes into the quality of the final image as viewed,
but lens quality and image resolution are the most important factors. You
can pre-test this by displaying a .jpg image file of 640x480 resolution (1.2
mb uncompressed, or less if compressed) on your screen. Regardless of the
file size, check the file's metadata to make sure that it's really at VGA
res and not a compressed version of an image made at higher resolution.
A coin will be best but any detailed image will work. If you have a digital
camera that can almost fill the frame with a close-up of a coin, make your
own image using a tripod. Set the camera to record .jpg images in VGA
resolution. It may compress the files to less than 1.2 meg but they're
still captured at 640x480. When viewing these, don't crop and/or enlarge
the image, just view the whole frame at 100% zoom size. This will tell you
a lot about whether VGA images from inexpensive USB scopes will suit your
needs.
When viewing your home-brew .jpg images, keep in mind that the lens on your
digital camera may be sharper (even at macro distances) than that on the USB
camera. So while you are judging the results of your own images, allow for
the possibility of a little more loss of sharpness on an inexpensive USB
rig. Finally, if the USB camera is coupled to a cheap microscope with its
own viewer, don't judge by that. What you want is to pipe the image to a
decent display like your computer monitor.
You can get USB rigs with higher image resolution and better lenses but
they're well out of the $50 - $125 "toy" range. I've had my eye on a
quality USB camera that IIRC runs about $350+ for the basic unit with the
50x lens, and $800 for the kit with 5 lenses providing a much more useful
range of magnifications (50x is overkill for coins). Your other options go
down and up from there.
Also consider getting a 3-D stereo microscope (not to be confused with a
stereo "laboratory scope"). These do not get as close to the item under
inspection and typically have magnifications of 5x to 50x depending on the
eyepieces. With an adapter *and* an adaptable good-quality USB camera - you
don't need and may not want one that's part of a "microscope kit" - you'll
get the best optical image that can be conveyed at the camera's resolution.
Just drop the camera into one of the eyepiece tubes (or the "third eye" tube
on microscopes that have one). Then you have good quality optics ahead of
the camera for screen viewing with nothing else in between to degrade the
live image. With another adapter you also can take still shots at much
higher resolutions with a digital camera taking the place of the USB camera.
Decent 3-D stereo scopes and the adapters can be had for $200-$400. A
decent USB camera for this use won't be as cheap as the toy ones but you'll
be in business both for both quality real-time close-up viewing and for
taking your own quality still photographs using either the computer
connection or a digital camera. The only caveat is that depending on the
front-end lenses, the image may not show the complete coin. You may have to
slide it around a bit to see all of it. These scopes also are not as
convenient to use as a dedicated "close up" USB camera using its own
light-weight stand.
I hope this helps. As always, it all boils down to what you want to do and
how much money you want to spend.
linxlvr
> ? <dwhe...@ipns.com> ?????? ??? ??????
> news:a8f76542-0072-448d-b0e8-
a7b1d4...@p36g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
gogu -
That's just because the TYII SLQ's had better wear characteristics!
Just kidding of course, and btw, that is a nice coin you have there. :-)
--
dw
gogu
news:h5t54p$e7g$1...@news.warwick.net...
:-)
Thanks!
I bought it about a year or a year and a half ago and I really paid little,
no more than $30.00 IIRC...
BTW, as I work abroad since October 2007 I cannot follow the evolution of
prices and I was astonished a few days ago to see how much some of my coins
have rise in these two years (especially the golden ones)!
Coin collecting is not such a bad investment after all when you know what to
buy.
I am not collecting for investment, just for the pleasure but it's nice to
know that your collection holds its value:-)
rgrds
dwhe...@ipns.com
I have always respected your opinion, Ira. And I thank you for it now.
You are evidently looking at a different grading book than I did -
Photograde. I based much of my grade on the shield, which clearly
shows both inner and outer details. But that was not the only factor.
The coin was originally described as "XF45", but comparison with
descriptions in Photograde seems low for that. I did not take into
consideration a complete and distinct date. Regarding the head,
perhaps the photos did not show it clearly, but the eyes are clearly
visible (one of the first features worn) as well as some hair detail.
Regarding allegations that I am a coin dealer: I am not. Regarding
allegations that the coin is merely a G-4 or G-5, I would suggest re-
reading the guidelines for SLQ's in Photograde. If said grade is based
solely on the condition of the date, or solely on the condition of
Liberty's toes, it negates other details of the coin. As I read it, a
G4 only requires a complete rim. This coin is far above that.
Daniel B. Wheeler
linxlvr
> Regarding allegations that I am a coin dealer: I am not. Regarding
> allegations that the coin is merely a G-4 or G-5, I would suggest re-
> reading the guidelines for SLQ's in Photograde. If said grade is based
> solely on the condition of the date, or solely on the condition of
> Liberty's toes, it negates other details of the coin. As I read it, a G4
> only requires a complete rim. This coin is far above that.
>
> Daniel B. Wheeler
I used the "Photograde" book and came up w/ F12, but could easily be
swayed to F15. I stated that in the thread before any grades were stated
by others, so I was not thrown off by the grades of someone else. You are
misusing and/or misunderstanding the "Photograde" book. I do agree with
you about not using one detail, and I think the referenced posters would
also. I think they just picked out something quick.
AU is a coin that looks uncirculated to an untrained eye.
To quote the "Photograde" book for AU.
"Only a trace of wear will show on kneecap, head, and center of shield"
and
"Only a trace of wear will be seen on the highest point of the eagle's
body"
But really, "Photograde" shows it's real merits by using it's photos. And
if you look at the photo for an AU SLQ, you will see what looks like an
Uncirculated coin.
In a totally serious way, if you are having trouble grading to that
extent, I would recommend a club or trust worthy dealer or both. Ask them
what to look for, what do they see. We all started somewhere. Look at
slabbed coins and notice fine details of the different grades of a given
series you want to work in.
I guess I just figured you had given in to the same temptation we all
face when we see ebay coins overgraded by sellers going for too much, and
get tempted to also overgrade them ourselves just to get a "fair" price.
The best way in that instance of course, is to choose the higher road.
Sorry if I had mistaken what was merely inexperience.
--
dw
Mr. Jaggers
> 8><--------------
>> Regarding allegations that I am a coin dealer: I am not. Regarding
>> allegations that the coin is merely a G-4 or G-5, I would suggest re-
>> reading the guidelines for SLQ's in Photograde. If said grade is
>> based solely on the condition of the date, or solely on the
>> condition of Liberty's toes, it negates other details of the coin.
>> As I read it, a G4 only requires a complete rim. This coin is far
>> above that.
>>
>> Daniel B. Wheeler
>
> I used the "Photograde" book and came up w/ F12, but could easily be
> swayed to F15. I stated that in the thread before any grades were
> stated by others, so I was not thrown off by the grades of someone
> else. You are misusing and/or misunderstanding the "Photograde" book.
> I do agree with you about not using one detail, and I think the
> referenced posters would also. I think they just picked out something
> quick.
As for using one detail, I know a ton of dealers who will sell me a buffalo
nickel with the tip of the horn entirely missing for full VF money, but I
know not a single one who will pay VF money unless the tip of the horn is
full, sharp, and separated, no matter even if the slab reads VF35, as they
often do.
James the Lowballer