Interesting 1942-S Quarter

DieVarieties · February 21, 2006 1:01AM

Below is a photo of a quarter in my personal collection illustrating the 1940-D that exhibits a totally separated extra "D" wide west of the primary "D" mint mark. It is listed in the CPG Guide as FS-012.4 and to the best of my knowledge -- they are still pretty tuff to find. The reason why I show this '40-D is that it illustrates widely separated RPM's on the quarter series are known/documented and does not set a precedent.

With that said, I have included two photos of a 1942-S quarter with raised remnants totally separated and wide west of the primary "S" mint mark. This '42-S quarter was sent to me from a collector quite a while back. To date I have not been able to come across another one. I have placed arrows pointing to raised remnants.

This below photo is the same but with a transparent overlay of the "S" superimposed over those raised remnants at the exact same magnification. Is it possible, and I emphasize the word possible, that we could have another totally separated RPM in the quarter series? Of course these remnants could very well be an interesting die gouge or some other weird anomaly. But -- it makes one think of the possibilities here especially when you compare with the similarities to the 1940-D totally separated RPM?

If any of you have any '42-S quarters you might want to take a look? As it stands for the moment, not enough is showing to make a positive determination. Another specimen for comparison examination could be helpful especially if it exhibited any additional remnants that would either confirm or for that matter disprove.

Thanks for your time and have a great day ...

au58 · February 21, 2006 2:37AM

Nice post. Even better pictures. Thank you.

seanq · February 21, 2006 3:14AM

In your pictures, the separate mintmark on that 1940-D quarter looks more like an S than another D. Look at the bottom left side of the mintmark, it is nearly vertical like the bottom of the S, there is no hint of a serif like you sould see on a D. Also notice at the bottom right, inside the mintmark where is starts curving upward, the inside of the secondary mintmark leans slightly left of vertical like the S, not plumb vertical like the inside of the D.

So, Billy, you still have that transparent overlay layer saved...?

Sean Reynolds

DieVarieties · February 21, 2006 4:15AM

<< In your pictures, the separate mintmark on that 1940-D quarter looks more like an S than another D. Look at the bottom left side of the mintmark, it is nearly vertical like the bottom of the S, there is no hint of a serif like you sould see on a D. Also notice at the bottom right, inside the mintmark where is starts curving upward, the inside of the secondary mintmark leans slightly left of vertical like the S, not plumb vertical like the inside of the D.

So, Billy, you still have that transparent overlay layer saved...?

Sean Reynolds >>

I want to make sure what your telling me so if I get this wrong -- please correct me.

Are you saying that the 1940-D that I have resembles more to be an "S" and NOT a "D" as reported in CPG Guide? Is that correct? And that I should take my "S" overlay and superimpose that overlay on the 1940-D remnants? Is that correct?

pharmer · February 21, 2006 4:22AM

Great thread, Billy, and great images and detective work. I'll check mine later, but wanted to say I can see Sean's point on the 40d. Wasn't where you were going with the thread, but that could be an S in the top images. Too me, more compelling possibility than the separate S on the 42s, which I doubt you'll be able to corraborate with just that little bit to work with on the "extra" S.

seanq · February 21, 2006 4:25AM

<< 

<< In your pictures, the separate mintmark on that 1940-D quarter looks more like an S than another D. Look at the bottom left side of the mintmark, it is nearly vertical like the bottom of the S, there is no hint of a serif like you sould see on a D. Also notice at the bottom right, inside the mintmark where is starts curving upward, the inside of the secondary mintmark leans slightly left of vertical like the S, not plumb vertical like the inside of the D.

So, Billy, you still have that transparent overlay layer saved...?

Sean Reynolds >>

I want to make sure what your telling me so if I get this wrong -- please correct me.

Are you saying that the 1940-D that I have resembles more to be an "S" and NOT a "D" as reported in CPG Guide? Is that correct? And that I should take my "S" overlay and superimpose that overlay on the 1940-D remnants? Is that correct? >>

Yes, Billy, I'm saying that to my eyes, the secondary mintmark on the 1940-D looks more like an S than a second D. The bottom of the secondary mintmark looks concave, with a vertical serif at the left and a curve returning towards the center of the mintmark on the right. The D has a downward pointing serif, a flat bottom, and the right side of the mintmark is vertical. Pretend you're looking at it for the first time, forget what other people say it is.

I also suggested you take the overlay you created for the 1942-S and put it over the secondary mintnark on the 1940-D. Having thought it through a little bit, though, I think the style of S mintmark used in 1940 was slightly different than the one used in 1942 (both were used in 1941, the small and large mintmark varieties). You'd be better off getting a 1940-S quarter and taking a picture of the mintmark, then superimposing it over the 1940-D.

Sean Reynolds

(Edited, got my years mixed up)

DieVarieties · February 21, 2006 4:31AM

<< Great thread, Billy, and great images and detective work. I'll check mine later, but wanted to say I can see Sean's point on the 40d. Wasn't where you were going with the thread, but that could be an S in the top images. Too me, more compelling possibility than the separate S on the 42s, which I doubt you'll be able to corraborate with just that little bit to work with on the "extra" S. >>

Damn! Oops -- can I say that? Oh well -- I did.

Now that I look more at the '40-D remnants -- I see what your talking about. I'll go work up an "S" transparency and superimpose on the '40-D and post the photo.

Your right -- this wasn't where I was going with this thread. But this is interesting!

DieVarieties · February 21, 2006 4:47AM

"I also suggested you take the overlay you created for the 1942-S and put it over the secondary mintnark on the 1940-D. Having thought it through a little bit, though, I think the style of S mintmark used in 1940 was slightly different than the one used in 1942 (both were used in 1941, the small and large mintmark varieties). You'd be better off getting a 1940-S quarter and taking a picture of the mintmark, then superimposing it over the 1940-D.

True and I don't have a '40-S mm style in my collection. I can still do an overlay with the '42-S. It will give us some perspective but will not be accurate as you mentioned.

relayer · February 21, 2006 5:30AM

Interesting. And great pictures!

DieVarieties · February 21, 2006 5:31AM

Seanq and pharmer: Is this what your talking about? Unfortunately -- I don't have a '40-S quarter mm style to shoot but this is with the 42-S overlay.

HTubbs · February 21, 2006 5:40AM

Interesting!

pharmer · February 21, 2006 6:01AM

Billy, yes, but like you and Sean said, 40s is likely a different style and size, and won't you need to make sure you are at the same distance with an S as you were with the D on the 40d? I haven't done overlays, and maybe the answer is that of course it's the same distance so that the size of the mm is the same as the d on the 40d, but isn't the one you're using here the same one as you are using on the 42s overlay? But, yes, I think that's what Sean is implying, and I agree with his observation on the 40d.

I guess another question is, whether there are also more than one s mm-types from 40s? I haven't looked yet. I could email Jose Cortez, or Dr Wiles if you like.

DieVarieties · February 21, 2006 6:15AM

<< Billy, yes, but like you and Sean said, 40s is likely a different style and size, and won't you need to make sure you are at the same distance with an S as you were with the D on the 40d? I haven't done overlays, and maybe the answer is that of course it's the same distance so that the size of the mm is the same as the d on the 40d, but isn't the one you're using here the same one as you are using on the 42s overlay? But, yes, I think that's what Sean is implying, and I agree with his observation on the 40d.

I guess another question is, whether there are also more than one s mm-types from 40s? I haven't looked yet. I could email Jose Cortez, or Dr Wiles if you like. >>

pharmer: Yes, you are correct. I'm using the same "S" mintmark that is from the '42-S. I know the magnification because I write that on my photos. However -- as you and Sean pointed out, the '40-S mint mark could very well be of a different style than what we see on the '42-S overlay I used.

Could you contact Jose' or Dr. Wiles to inquire if there is a different style or styles of "S" used for '40-S quarters as compared with the '42-S quarter? If that turns out to be the case -- then I will have to somehow acquire the '40-S style mint mark and then re-do with that overlay for a more accurate assessment.

edited to add: BTW -- ironically, it was Jose' Cortez who submitted to me the 1942-S quarter quite a while back inquiring about the raised remnants we see in that photo. I couldn't find another specimen and was hoping someone here might happen to come across one or had one in their collection.

pharmer · February 21, 2006 6:56AM

I will, Billy, I need to discuss another matter with him anyway. That is interesting, small world.

Interesting 1942-S Quarter

Comments

Leave a Comment