| Author |
 Replies: 26 / Views: 5,378 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1534 Posts |
There are two Type 1 versions. The 1916 and 1917 Type 1. There are numerous die characteristics to differentiate between a 1916 and 1917. These are all off the top of my head, do I may be wrong.
1. The shield rivets are much more pronounced on the 1917.
2. On the 1916, the beads along the rim were cut in half to make room for Liberty's head.
3. The gown folds do not touch the leg on the 1916.
There are others, but those three are all I can come up with right now.
|
|
Rest in Peace
 United States
4849 Posts |
Thanks for the comments. I am over 90% sure that the bottom right coin either is a dateless 1916, or is a counterfeit made to look like one. Before bidding, I drew this diagram. I took several certified AG3/FR2 coins off of Heritage and shrunk them down to a similar size to compare. I also used nod's photos, since his were in a similar grade level. Many of the diagnostics have been mentioned, but the clincher is the location of the gown fold that extends past liberty's arm behind the wall(see the area circled in red). Notice all of the 1916s have this fold extending all the way to the wall. On the 1917s, this fold is higher up, and next to her body. This is because in 1917, her gown extends in front of the wall making it a high point more susceptible to wear. http://www.slqcoins.us/educational.htmlIn addition, the lack of shield definition, and the fold in the bottom of her gown match. The hair curl is tougher to make out with these tiny photos, but nothing indicates otherwise. Again though, this may all just be in my head. I guess we will find out in several days....  Edited by johnny54321
03/23/2010 12:51 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1409 Posts |
Nice job with the comparative photos. Combined with NODs thread this one will serve as alot of help as others "trip" over potential '16's.
Of course, more detailed photo's would help, but so far, I still think you have found one. Someone else mentioned the hair (mainly the 2nd piece) - but without very detailed photos it is nearly impossible to tell if your coin has any trace of that small wisp of hair above the main dollop.
Good luck man - and get it graded and let us know results!
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
4849 Posts |
Quote:
Johnny you said you have a 7 day return policy if you're wrong, but I don't think it would be right to return the lot if they all are 1917 dateless Type 1. Seller never claims 1916 is in the lot does he/she? I have to disagree here. My understanding of a 7 day return without stipulations is that you can return the item for ANY reason. This is how I exercise it. As a seller, the only item that I ever had a return on was not because the item was "not as described", but because it was "not as expected" since he didn't like the way the coin looked in hand. Of course, the buyer should be responsible for shipping both ways in this case. These types of lots often go for many times melt, and I don't think people would bid that high if they couldnt return it. I know I wouldnt have. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2602 Posts |
If seller has a "no questions asked" return policy I guess you as a buyer can capitalize on it no matter what then. Though I disagree with you if you capitalize on it.
Personally, I have an objection to capitalizing on a return policy like that when you have pictures of what you are getting, and it's assumed you will receive everything shown in the lot and the transaction is otherwise probably going to be smooth. Transaction was smooth, you got everything in the pictures and description and you'd return it solely because a piece in the pic you weren't 100% sure about turns out to be the common? The reason for my objection? Because the seller has a lot of fees riding on this auction and you'd be sticking all those fees to the seller- he's got to re-post the lot after he receives it back from you. Plus you'd be returning it after you searched the lot, and the piece you are looking for is not there. Since you searched it, he technically receives it back yet cannot sell it as an unsearched lot (if he normally does say this), so he'd have to decrease the strength of the wording of his auction. To me this is unethical to return a lot after you searched it. No offense meant just a difference in opinion. I would never return it. I would re-sell it at a later date and accept my responsibility for the fun of coin collecting and searching through lots. Whether or not you paid above melt value is not relevant to the argument- maybe you were a little eager as a bidder.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
4849 Posts |
Quote:
Personally, I have an objection to capitalizing on a return policy like that when you have pictures of what you are getting, and it's assumed you will receive everything shown in the lot and the transaction is otherwise probably going to be smooth. Transaction was smooth, you got everything in the pictures and description and you'd return it solely because a piece in the pic you weren't 100% sure about turns out to be the common? The reason for my objection? Because the seller has a lot of fees riding on this auction and you'd be sticking all those fees to the seller- he's got to re-post the lot after he receives it back from you. Plus you'd be returning it after you searched the lot, and the piece you are looking for is not there. Since you searched it, he technically receives it back yet cannot sell it as an unsearched lot (if he normally does say this), so he'd have to decrease the strength of the wording of his auction. To me this is unethical to return a lot after you searched it. No offense meant just a difference in opinion. I would never return it. I would re-sell it at a later date and accept my responsibility for the fun of coin collecting and searching through lots. Whether or not you paid above melt value is not relevant to the argument- maybe you were a little eager as a bidder I understand what you are saying, but on the same note, if the seller did not have a full return policy, I'm willing to bet that a lot of people wouldn't bid half as much on some of the auctions. I think he would make a lot less overall. I've seen some of these lots go over 10x melt because of what looks to be a key date. The dates and Mintmarks can be clearly seen in most cases, so it's not the same as buying an unsearched roll(in which I would totally agree with you). Most of the fees are returned if both buyer and seller agree to cancel sale(at least in my case). So, I guess in the sellers best interest, is he going to lose more for potential returns? or is he going to lose more because people are more hesitant to bid on an item without a full return policy? I think what people pay for these lots is very relevant because it shows how much they are willing to risk. That risk goes down dramatically with a full return policy. Anyways, we can probably agree to disagree here. In the case of my lot though, I am very confident this coin is not a 1917. But what if it is a counterfeit 1916? Should I still not have return priveleges?  Edited by johnny54321
03/23/2010 2:30 pm
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
4849 Posts |
Since we are on the subject, I was looking through the Heritage archives at this raw "supposed" 1916 quarter. I think they are flat out wrong, and this is a 1917. Could they have goofed that bad, or am I losing it? http://coins.ha.com/common/view_ite...o=7171#Photo |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1534 Posts |
I agree with you, looks like a 1917.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
476 Posts |
I'd agree with you based on my limited knowledge that shield is definitely a 1917.
Okay, so "limited knowledge" and "definitely" probably don't go together, but I do have limited knowledge, and based on that limited knowledge, it's definitely a 1917.
Edited by DylansDad
03/23/2010 10:25 pm
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
4849 Posts |
That is good to know; because if THAT coin is a 1916, I just sold about a dozen 1916s for MELT!  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1409 Posts |
LOL.........I looked and agree, its not a 16.
|
| |
Replies: 26 / Views: 5,378 |
First Page
Posted 03/23/2010 12:23 pm
