| Author |
 Replies: 12 / Views: 1,031 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
191 Posts |
Edited by Tbar
12/16/2006 8:05 pm
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23731 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
270 Posts |
what year is it. I couldnt tell what year it is from the pictures
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
751 Posts |
It has the 1916-7 reverse. That would make it a 1917, unless our friend is very modest.
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
191 Posts |
Yes its a 1917...MS 61 pcgs. I just wish I was worth a darn at posting pictures. Can't wait to crack this one out!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
834 Posts |
quote:
Originally posted by Tbar
Yes its a 1917...MS 61 pcgs. I just wish I was worth a darn at posting pictures. Can't wait to crack this one out!
Very nice indeed is it going into a 7070 type set  |
|
Member
United States
3242 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
191 Posts |
Its not going in a 7070...its going in an airtite only because the rest of my SLQs are raw...and I have a thing for continuity.  Edited by Tbar
12/19/2006 09:40 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
834 Posts |
Today I picked up a type 1 1917 standing liberty no were near as nice as TBAR'S and a 1857 Seated Liberty half dime for my 7070 set. Come to think of it when I upgrade the 1917 type 1 it won't be as nice as TBAR'S. Bruce. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4589 Posts |
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
3730 Posts |
One of my favorite coins.
I have several, but none come close to the quality of this one.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
pcgs had an advantage over us on this coin because they had it in hand but I can tell you from the pictures it looks like they were a little harsh on it. I have a PCGS MS-64FH that I cant really say looks better than yours maybe a little more detail in the hair but not enough to bring it down to a 61
Edited by Bryan1315
12/20/2006 04:38 am
|
|
Valued Member
United States
191 Posts |
The coin has good eye appeal.
Its a little weak in the date....Luster could be better....and has the 2 small spots on the obverse.
Its a solid 62 in my mind. I think the lack of a real frosty surface and a weaker date is what got it the 61. 1917 is typically a strong consistent strike, so the little weakness in the date I think is the main problem here.
Overall I am happy with it. It has a real strong nipple which I like on the type1. I paid au58 money for it.
Thanks for looking.
|
| |
Replies: 12 / Views: 1,031 |
|
Posted 12/16/2006 4:11 pm
