Opinion on Quarter

Nscjohnson

Does this look like the mintmark is stamped into the ribbon/hair? Thanks.

Smudge

No.

Nscjohnson

@Smudge said:
No.

What do you think it is? Thanks

Smudge

Post mint damage. Coincidence. Bump to that area of the coin. Just not a mintmark.

JBK

If you compare that quarter to another one of similar vintage (always a good idea), you will see that the "blob" that your mintmark is resting on is not part of the design.

If that "blob" is raised and is not a foreign material, then it would appear that the area where the mintmark is was impacted by a die break/chip that has the appearance of a "mound" underneath the mintmark. (This is assuming there is no corresponding damage on the reverse of the coin that could have pushed metal outward on the obverse).

johnny9434

no

cladking

Interesting look but that "MM" is too large for the '88-P.

Nscjohnson

@cladking said:
Interesting look but that "MM" is too large for the '88-P.

If that isn't the mintmark, where is it? Thanks

Nscjohnson

@Smudge said:
Post mint damage. Coincidence. Bump to that area of the coin. Just not a mintmark.

Thanks, but where is the mintmark then?

Smudge

Mint marks are mostly for branch mints.

Hemispherical

What is the four digit year of the quarter?

Nscjohnson

@JBK said:
If you compare that quarter to another one of similar vintage (always a good idea), you will see that the "blob" that your mintmark is resting on is not part of the design.

If that "blob" is raised and is not a foreign material, then it would appear that the area where the mintmark is was impacted by a die break/chip that has the appearance of a "mound" underneath the mintmark. (This is assuming there is no corresponding damage on the reverse of the coin that could have pushed metal outward on the obverse).

Thanks for your explanation. That was very helpful. I included a picture of the back in case you can see anything that might be causing the problem on the front.

Nscjohnson

@Hemispherical said:
What is the four digit year of the quarter?

It is 1988. I have another 1988 that looks different. I am attaching. Thanks

Nscjohnson

@Smudge said:
Mint marks are mostly for branch mints.

I'm sorry, but I am not sure what you mean. Can you please explain? Thanks.

jmlanzaf

Isn't the "P" right there? There is, as @JBK mentioned, what appears to be a die break near the mint mark

Hemispherical

@Nscjohnson said:

@JBK said:
If you compare that quarter to another one of similar vintage (always a good idea), you will see that the "blob" that your mintmark is resting on is not part of the design.

If that "blob" is raised and is not a foreign material, then it would appear that the area where the mintmark is was impacted by a die break/chip that has the appearance of a "mound" underneath the mintmark. (This is assuming there is no corresponding damage on the reverse of the coin that could have pushed metal outward on the obverse).

Thanks for your explanation. That was very helpful. I included a picture of the back in case you can see anything that might be causing the problem on the front.

The bottom of the obverse is normally the top of the reverse.

Adjust your pic to show more of the top of the reverse.

JBK

@Nscjohnson said:

@Smudge said:
Mint marks are mostly for branch mints.

I'm sorry, but I am not sure what you mean. Can you please explain? Thanks.

In the bad old days when most of us were younger, Philadelphia coins had no mintmarks. Somewhere in the early 1980s they added P mintmarks for Philly to all coins except the cent. (Yes, I know, in 2017 they added the P for one year only).

cladking

@Nscjohnson said:

@cladking said:
Interesting look but that "MM" is too large for the '88-P.

If that isn't the mintmark, where is it? Thanks

Many '88-P quarters and a few 1989-P quarters were issued without mint marks. More accurately the tiny MM became filled with grease and debris so didn't show on the finished product.

These have been mostly forgotten over the years but are still seen in circulation from time to time. It's highly improbable that this coin has a large "P" in the ribbon for a mm. It's much more likely that the "P" came from debris from "PLURIBUS" and was stamped into the obverse. At this point I'd guess this isn't extremely likely either but the coin holds my interest.

cladking

By the way, I don't recall seeing any '88-P quarters missing the "P' in "PLURIBUS" but these events can occur rather suddenly leaving little evidence in circulation and my memory is hardly infallible. This is not a common area to collect grease and debris.

Nscjohnson

@Hemispherical said:

@Nscjohnson said:

@JBK said:
If you compare that quarter to another one of similar vintage (always a good idea), you will see that the "blob" that your mintmark is resting on is not part of the design.

If that "blob" is raised and is not a foreign material, then it would appear that the area where the mintmark is was impacted by a die break/chip that has the appearance of a "mound" underneath the mintmark. (This is assuming there is no corresponding damage on the reverse of the coin that could have pushed metal outward on the obverse).

Thanks for your explanation. That was very helpful. I included a picture of the back in case you can see anything that might be causing the problem on the front.

The bottom of the obverse is normally the top of the reverse.

Adjust your pic to show more of the top of the reverse.

Does this help? Thanks

Nscjohnson

@JBK said:

@Nscjohnson said:

@Smudge said:
Mint marks are mostly for branch mints.

I'm sorry, but I am not sure what you mean. Can you please explain? Thanks.

In the bad old days when most of us were younger, Philadelphia coins had no mintmarks. Somewhere in the early 1980s they added P mintmarks for Philly to all coins except the cent. (Yes, I know, in 2017 they added the P for one year only).

Thank you. This should not vary within a year though, right? I have another one that does have a "p" mintmark. I have luckily gotten a lot of responses, but unluckily, there doesn't seem to be agreement. Option 1- No mintmark, post mint damage only and image that looks like a P is not a P, just coincidence. Option 2- Die break or chip near the P mint mark. 3. Option 3- The "p" is too big to be a mintmark, and this may be one of the 1988 quarter without a mintmark. This is interesting...

JBK

@Nscjohnson said:

@Hemispherical said:

@Nscjohnson said:

@JBK said:
If you compare that quarter to another one of similar vintage (always a good idea), you will see that the "blob" that your mintmark is resting on is not part of the design.

If that "blob" is raised and is not a foreign material, then it would appear that the area where the mintmark is was impacted by a die break/chip that has the appearance of a "mound" underneath the mintmark. (This is assuming there is no corresponding damage on the reverse of the coin that could have pushed metal outward on the obverse).

Thanks for your explanation. That was very helpful. I included a picture of the back in case you can see anything that might be causing the problem on the front.

The bottom of the obverse is normally the top of the reverse.

Adjust your pic to show more of the top of the reverse.

Does this help? Thanks

Yes - looks good (no damage)

Nscjohnson

@JBK said:

@Nscjohnson said:

@Hemispherical said:

@Nscjohnson said:

@JBK said:
If you compare that quarter to another one of similar vintage (always a good idea), you will see that the "blob" that your mintmark is resting on is not part of the design.

If that "blob" is raised and is not a foreign material, then it would appear that the area where the mintmark is was impacted by a die break/chip that has the appearance of a "mound" underneath the mintmark. (This is assuming there is no corresponding damage on the reverse of the coin that could have pushed metal outward on the obverse).

Thanks for your explanation. That was very helpful. I included a picture of the back in case you can see anything that might be causing the problem on the front.

The bottom of the obverse is normally the top of the reverse.

Adjust your pic to show more of the top of the reverse.

Does this help? Thanks

Yes - looks good (no damage)

Thanks for checking. So to you, this is some type of die break/chip? Do you think the image that looks like a "p" is actually a "p"? Again, I appreciate your help. Thanks

JBK

@cladking said:
It's highly improbable that this coin has a large "P" in the ribbon for a mm. It's much more likely that the "P" came from debris from "PLURIBUS" and was stamped into the obverse. At this point I'd guess this isn't extremely likely either but the coin holds my interest.

Please work with me here. What am I missing that the CladKing is seeing?

I don't see a P mintmark in the ribbon - the P mintmark is in an area beyond the ribbon. The "blob" underneath the P appears to be connected to the ribbon but I do not think it is part of the design. It would appear to be a void (chip) in the die. No?

Nscjohnson

@cladking said:

@Nscjohnson said:

@cladking said:
Interesting look but that "MM" is too large for the '88-P.

If that isn't the mintmark, where is it? Thanks

Many '88-P quarters and a few 1989-P quarters were issued without mint marks. More accurately the tiny MM became filled with grease and debris so didn't show on the finished product.

These have been mostly forgotten over the years but are still seen in circulation from time to time. It's highly improbable that this coin has a large "P" in the ribbon for a mm. It's much more likely that the "P" came from debris from "PLURIBUS" and was stamped into the obverse. At this point I'd guess this isn't extremely likely either but the coin holds my interest.

I added an image of the back. It looks like the "p" from Pluribus is present. I find it interesting as well, as this is the first coin I have had where everyone did not agree on what was going on. I am learning a lot from everyone's comments. Thank you so much for your help.

JBK

@Nscjohnson said:

Thanks for checking. So to you, this is some type of die break/chip? Do you think the image that looks like a "p" is actually a "p"? Again, I appreciate your help. Thanks

Personally, I see a P exactly where it should be. It is the blob underneath it that looks out of place to me.

Nscjohnson

@JBK said:

@Nscjohnson said:

Thanks for checking. So to you, this is some type of die break/chip? Do you think the image that looks like a "p" is actually a "p"? Again, I appreciate your help. Thanks

Personally, I see a P exactly where it should be. It is the blob underneath it that looks out of place to me.

Oops, I think I confused a response from someone else with yours. Sorry!

ricko

There appears to be extra material where the MM is located... Cheers, RickO

JBK

@Nscjohnson said:
I find it interesting as well, as this is the first coin I have had where everyone did not agree on what was going on. I am learning a lot from everyone's comments. Thank you so much for your help.

At least everyone isn't screaming that it is Post Mint Damage.

It is interesting for sure.

jmlanzaf

@JBK said:

@cladking said:
It's highly improbable that this coin has a large "P" in the ribbon for a mm. It's much more likely that the "P" came from debris from "PLURIBUS" and was stamped into the obverse. At this point I'd guess this isn't extremely likely either but the coin holds my interest.

Please work with me here. What am I missing that the CladKing is seeing?

I don't see a P mintmark in the ribbon - the P mintmark is in an area beyond the ribbon. The "blob" underneath the P appears to be connected to the ribbon but I do not think it is part of the design. It would appear to be a void (chip) in the die. No?

THIS

OP, please look at your own image of the regular quarter. The P is in its normal position, not on the ribbon

cladking

Jeesh.

You're right.

abcde12345

I remember spending that exactly quarter at a car wash in Ogden Utah not too long ago.
Nice to see it again.

Nscjohnson

@abcde12345 said:
I remember spending that exactly quarter at a car wash in Ogden Utah not too long ago.
Nice to see it again.

So that means there are more that look exactly like this? Would this not mean that whatever it is could not have been post mint?

Nscjohnson

@jmlanzaf said:

@JBK said:

@cladking said:
It's highly improbable that this coin has a large "P" in the ribbon for a mm. It's much more likely that the "P" came from debris from "PLURIBUS" and was stamped into the obverse. At this point I'd guess this isn't extremely likely either but the coin holds my interest.

Please work with me here. What am I missing that the CladKing is seeing?

I don't see a P mintmark in the ribbon - the P mintmark is in an area beyond the ribbon. The "blob" underneath the P appears to be connected to the ribbon but I do not think it is part of the design. It would appear to be a void (chip) in the die. No?

THIS

OP, please look at your own image of the regular quarter. The P is in its normal position, not on the ribbon

Thanks!

Nscjohnson

@JBK said:

@Nscjohnson said:
I find it interesting as well, as this is the first coin I have had where everyone did not agree on what was going on. I am learning a lot from everyone's comments. Thank you so much for your help.

At least everyone isn't screaming that it is Post Mint Damage.

It is interesting for sure.

That's what has been fun about it; people who know so much about coins thinking this through online. Listening to people with different perspectives who all know what they are doing is a great way to learn.

Nscjohnson

@cladking said:
Jeesh.

You're right.

Is this something that could possibly have more value than a quarter? Is it something that might be worth my having someone examine? Thanks

Nscjohnson

@JBK said:

@Nscjohnson said:

@Smudge said:
Mint marks are mostly for branch mints.

I'm sorry, but I am not sure what you mean. Can you please explain? Thanks.

In the bad old days when most of us were younger, Philadelphia coins had no mintmarks. Somewhere in the early 1980s they added P mintmarks for Philly to all coins except the cent. (Yes, I know, in 2017 they added the P for one year only).

I didn't know about the 2017 penny. Good to know. Thanks!

jmlanzaf

@Nscjohnson said:

@abcde12345 said:
I remember spending that exactly quarter at a car wash in Ogden Utah not too long ago.
Nice to see it again.

So that means there are more that look exactly like this? Would this not mean that whatever it is could not have been post mint?

He's just kidding.

jmlanzaf

@Nscjohnson said:

@cladking said:
Jeesh.

You're right.

Is this something that could possibly have more value than a quarter? Is it something that might be worth my having someone examine? Thanks

There is what looks like damage to the die where the mintmark is located. That might make it of interest to someone. But it is the $ level interest not the $100 level interest. It is not worth slabbing, if that is what you mean by "having someone examine" it.

Outhaul

Okay then. What you have here is the extremely rare and elusive Washington quarter known as the “Lumpy Variety.”

It is widely known that, as a child, George Washington had an extremely large lump on the nape of his neck that protruded to the point that he was ridiculed and bullied by all of his friends. His mean-spirited friends nicknamed poor George “Lumpy” after Lumpy Rutherford of Leave it to Beaver fame.

As George grew older he grew his hair out to cover the deformity. However, while sitting for a portrait for an unknown artist (and former childhood bully), the bully decided to add the lump as one final act of meanness.

When the portrait was handed over to the US Mint to create the master hub for the quarter, the chief engraver (another of George’s Arch enemies) recalled the offending lump and included it on the master hub.

However, George had the last laugh in the end and became a great general and first President of the United States of America and he lived happily ever after while all those who bullied them lost their jobs, went on the dole and were forced to live on government cheese, got constipated and died.

The End

Cheers

Bob

JBK

There are for sure more like it - could be 100s or 1000s. It all depends on how soon they caught the deterioration or how soon the die just disintegrated if it got bad enough.

I don't see any significant value but I would keep it if I found it.

Nscjohnson

@Outhaul said:
Okay then. What you have here is the extremely rare and elusive Washington quarter known as the “Lumpy Variety.”

It is widely known that, as a child, George Washington had an extremely large lump on the nape of his neck that protruded to the point that he was ridiculed and bullied by all of his friends. His mean-spirited friends nicknamed poor George “Lumpy” after Lumpy Rutherford of Leave it to Beaver fame.

As George grew older he grew his hair out to cover the deformity. However, while sitting for a portrait for an unknown artist (and former childhood bully), the bully decided to add the lump as one final act of meanness.

When the portrait was handed over to the US Mint to create the master hub for the quarter, the chief engraver (another of George’s Arch enemies) recalled the offending lump and included it on the master hub.

However, George had the last laugh in the end and became a great general and first President of the United States of America and he lived happily ever after while all those who bullied them lost their jobs, went on the dole and were forced to live on government cheese, got constipated and died.

The End

Cheers

Bob

Hilarious!!!

Nscjohnson

@JBK said:
There are for sure more like it - could be 100s or 1000s. It all depends on how soon they caught the deterioration or how soon the die just disintegrated if it got bad enough.

I don't see any significant value but I would keep it if I found it.

Then keep it, I shall. Thanks!

Nscjohnson

@jmlanzaf said:

@Nscjohnson said:

@cladking said:
Jeesh.

You're right.

Is this something that could possibly have more value than a quarter? Is it something that might be worth my having someone examine? Thanks

There is what looks like damage to the die where the mintmark is located. That might make it of interest to someone. But it is the $ level interest not the $100 level interest. It is not worth slabbing, if that is what you mean by "having someone examine" it.

I don't know what "slabbing" means, but based on your feedback. I will just keep it in my collection. Thanks so much.

JBK

@Nscjohnson said:

I don't know what "slabbing" means, but based on your feedback. I will just keep it in my collection. Thanks so much.

Slang for the encapsulation that Third Party Graders (like PCGS) do. There are lots of pictures of slabbed coins on this site - the sort of rectangular plastic holders.

asheland

Enclosing a 25-cent piece for examination, I have the honor to say that the piece is genuine.

It has been battered a good deal – looks as if it had been run over in the road by carriages. The want of sonority is produced by a crack in the periphery of the piece.

The letter and coin are herewith returned to you.
I am, very respectfully,
A Loudoun Snowden,
Coiner

asheland

I've been waiting to use that!

Outhaul

@asheland said:
I've been waiting to use that!

Timing is everything...

Outhaul

Bump. Because I think the TRUTH needs to be told.