2 variety discoveries for 1983 D Washington Quarter
nccc
Posts: 27 ✭
Hello Everyone,
I think I discovered 2 new varieties for the 1983 D Washington Quarter. I think that both coins are undiscovered varieties for this year.
The first one is what is typically considered a "Type 2" variety. It has thinner letters or typeface on the reverse of the coin. This typeface is very similar to the typeface of the proof design of that same year. The second one is a Doubled Die Reverse / DDR which I’m thinking is both an error and a variety.
I've heard of the use (or rather re-use) by the Mint of proof dies/hubs for business or circulating coins. It is known that the Mint has, in the past, re-used proof dies/hubs for business or circulating coins to "get more mileage" out of them. In particular, this occurred with the re-use of the reverse or "anvil" die/hub which supposedly undergoes more pressure/wear than the hammer die. The TYPE B Proof Reverse Washington Quarters of 1956-1964 is an example of use by the Mint of proof dies/hubs. This has also occurred on the 1972 Eisenhower Dollars which resulted in the "Type 2" variety.
In the photos below, I show the differences in these two typefaces or designs.
On the word "STATES", the differences in the design are noticeable in the letters "A", “T”, "E" and the "S". All 4 are thinner.
On the words "E PLURIBUS UNUM", the differences in the design are noticeable in all 3 words. All 3 are thinner. The difference is most noticeable in "PLURIB" and "UNU".
Comments
On the word "AMERICA", the letter "M" does not have serifs on its ‘feet’, the letter "E" is thinner and the letter "R" has a thinner right leg.
On the word "UNITED", the differences in the design are noticeable in the letters "N" and the "T". The "N" has a thinner diagonal line and has a higher ‘armpit’ while the "T" has a thinner trunk.
And on the word "QUARTER" at the bottom, there’s noticeable differences in the distance between the leaves to the "Q" and the the "U" which I've circled.
Based on these diagnostics, I’m guessing that a proof working anvil hub was re-used to create business strike working dies?
On the second coin, I’m referring to it as a "Type 2 over Type 1" DDR variety.
The second set of photos below show the doubling on the actual coin.
On the word "STATES", the doubling is most noticeable in the letters "A", "E" and the "S" while both “T”s have minor doubling which is seen on both sides of the trunk.
On the words " E PLURIBUS UNUM", the doubling is most noticeable in the letter “P” and the letter "L".
On the word "AMERICA", the doubling is most noticeable in the letters "M", "E" and the "R".
On the word "UNITED", the doubling is most noticeable in the letter "N" and the letter “U”.
And on the word "QUARTER" at the bottom, the letter "A" has a double peak.
There is a noticeable amount of what looks to be die wear, especially below the "E" in "AMERICA" and the “U” in "UNITED". This could be a hint as to why a proof working hub was used.
On this DDR, my theory is that since this doubling has 2 different designs, the same proof working anvil hub used to create the "Type 2" variety was used on a second pressing on a working die that already had the "Type 1" design on it, probably because the "Type 1" hub was worn out and causing the edges of these letters to be ragged.
I certainly would like to hear your theories on what possibly happened that caused these 2 varieties.
Regards
I found 2 varieties also - Mustard or Ketchup!
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
Welcome to the forum!
It is clear you have put quite a bit of thought and effort into what you are seeing.
Great job!
Variety Vista is only showing one reverse design for the years 1980 - 1985 including proofs.
http://www.varietyvista.com/09b WQ Vol 2/Reverse Design Varieties.htm
Variety Vista is not showing a doubled die reverse for 1983 D
The coin you are showing shows signs of die erosion or a worn die, this can cause a look of doubling.
Looks like die deteration from what I can see, full obv and rev photos of the coin would be helpful.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Interesting set of photos.
I believe all are from the same master hub, so they are not "varieties".
The visual effect is due to die wear/erosion and/or striking quality.
For example, note the severe flow lines coming off the apparent doubled "P".
Now if you found an early die state with that doubled "P", that would be an entirely different matter.
Also note that a weak strike with flat letters makes them look fatter than a strong strike from the exact same die.
cool, I didn't even know Denver minted proof quarters in 1983
@nccc... Welcome aboard. Those are really good pictures. I believe @dcarr has given you an accurate diagnosis. Cheers, RickO
I don't know.
I do know that there are some 30,000,000 '83-D quarters in circulation that look a great deal like what Nccc is calling type 2.
They range from low end fine to solid AU and from weak mushy strikes to hammered.
The only difference between them is that the type 2 is much more often PL on the reverse. Early die strikes are exceedingly difficult to find because almost no circulating issues were saved but this same thing does appear (rarely) on the '81-P quarter in the mint set so there are early die strikes with dramatic PL's in the mint set.
I have to say that this is one of the most impressive first posts I have seen! You really took your time and paid attention to the most minute details of that coin. Whether your conclusions were correct or not, your investigative and photography skills are impressive! Welcome to the forum! Daniel Carr knows more about the actual minting process than probably anyone else here, because he actually mints coins, and has even contributed to the design of several circulating US coins.
Nice pics OP and welcome to the boards.
Others have already touched on this, I believe- but what I see is a combination of die wear and possibly some machine doubling.
Edited for typo.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
Thanks to Nccc's photos and a link he provided (on another site) I have a new workable theory for how this reverse occurred. God knows I'll never understand why it hasn't been previously discovered. Perhaps people just couldn't believe that there could be two different reverses! Of course clad quarters get extremely little attention.
https://conecaonline.org/so-just-when-did-single-squeeze-hubbing-begin/
I'm guessing the mint was experimenting with single squeeze in 1977 and used a single die at each mint that year. The design differences initially were tiny, virtually insignificant but they didn't like the results and started making larger and larger redesigns until single squeeze accounted for nearly 30% of 1984 quarter reverse production.
I believe this might even explain apparent experimentation with obverse clad quarter designs beginning in 1985. After 1984 a hybrid of the type 1/ type 2 reverse was apparently used for all quarters and were single squeeze.
There are some really interesting quarters in circulation.
I think we might end up owing Nccc a great deal of gratitude to not only bring this to our attention but to provide photos and possibly even direct us to the cause. I've made no progress bringing these to light for 40 years, Nccc has already done better.
@dcarr is correct.
I wish I could get photos like these.
bob
Perhaps.
But I would suggest getting a small handful of 1980 to '84 quarters and looking for yourself. There are some like the type 1 that are well struck and some poorly struck including some made with good dies and bad dies. There are admixtures of the two. There will also be some of the type 2's that are well struck, poorly struck, good dies, and bad dies.
In every case you can tell the two apart.
I've looked at many large handfuls of those quarters.
Any observed differences in the coins can be attributed to differences in such variables as strike strength, die state, die polishing, and perhaps hubbing strength on the dies. Just as in the OP images, I saw no examples that originated from a different hub design.
Let me rephrase my last post then;
How can you tell? Why is the right side "N" in "UNUM" farther away from the eagle's head if they are made by dies from the same hub? It is always further away on every specimen well struck or otherwise. And it gets further every year from '77 to '84.
Is it possible that the only difference is single squeeze or double squeeze? This has been my working theory for some time but that type 2 over type 1 certainly seems to blow that out of the water. I never cared much for this theory anyway because the shape of the Q is different. Really the only fact explained by this theory is that type 2 relief is lower.
Certainly if they wanted single squeeze then lowering the relief would make it easier.
I doubt there is a simple answer and I know it is not a strike characteristic.
Obviously this can create some differences. And it is consistent with the increased likelihood of the reverse being PL.
Another theory I once had and rejected was that these "type 2" dies began preparation as proof dies but were not completed as such.
I don't know. I've had many theories.
Taking us out of our comfort zone to think about varieties. Nice. Peace Roy
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall
ifthevamzarockin:
Thanks for the welcome.
Is Variety Vista the gospel on what varieties exist? Or would new varieties get discovered and then get added to their site?
davewesen:
Thanks for pointing this out. This is certainly a mistake on my part. I was in a hurry doing copy/pastes on the title of these images and overlooked that.
I've made the edits on the images above.
cladking:
My "Type 2" specimen has smooth & whitish fields. One can see it clearly in my photos. However, I can’t say that it’s PL.
From my research, it sounds like all the hubs & dies are made in Philly and then shipped to other Mints.
The prepping for the proof dies included sandblasting the entire surface then polishing the raised surfaces - which would be the fields on a die. The devices would be incuse on a die and therefore would not get touched and would retain the sandblasted surface.
Since these were not proof dies, they did not get the aforementioned prepwork.
Nope it's not gospel and yes as new discoveries are made they are added to the site.
Wishing you all the best with your research.
bob:
I'm just using a smartphone and a loupe. It’s a bit challenging but certainly doable
Dwayne:
Thank you for the welcome and the kind words. And thanks for the info on Daniel Carr’s background. It’s certainly good to know where he’s coming from.
To be clear, there are 2 varieties that I’m presenting here:
Please be specific when you’re commenting on either.
RDV-012 seems to be the version
varietyvista.com/09b%20WQ%20Vol%202/Reverse%20Design%20Varieties.htm
coinbuf & dcarr:
The "Type 2" variety has thinner letters and a sharper strike. How does die deterioration/wear cause that? When the devices become thinner & sharper, it’s going the opposite direction than die deterioration, correct?
Or are you saying that the design started out with thin letters and a sharper strike and as it got worn, the letters got thicker? What would the population distribution of coin created over the life of that die be from early die state, mid die state, to late die state?
What if I showed you a high MS grade 1983 D Washington Quarter with thick letters and a sharp strike? Are you still going to think it’s ‘die wear’?
Well, I took the time to look thru the PCGS TrueViews for the 1983-D Quarter to look for ones with sharp strikes, and I found one. I also looked thru TrueViews for the 1983- P Quarter (same master & working hubs, as you say) and found a couple. Here they are along with links directly to their cert pages on the PCGS website:
You can view the entire image on the TrueView page, I’m just showing a cropped area of "STATES" and "E PLURIBUS UNUM":
1983-D Quarter Type 1 MS66+
https://www.pcgs.com/cert/41447697
1983-P Quarter Type 1 MS65
https://www.pcgs.com/cert/14483128
1983-P Quarter Type 1 MS66+
https://www.pcgs.com/cert/28646307
Btw, I roll hunted quarters for awhile and would buy multiple $500 boxes of quarters. Some weeks I would buy $2000-3000 of quarters. All the quarters I found - including the 1983 D - had the "Type 1" thick letters reverse variety, except for 2. I have also bought cello-wrapped Quarter Lots (10-20 of the same year per lot) from the late 60s to the late 90s, cut out of Unc Mint Sets but still in their cellos. I’ve looked thru all of them with both a magnifying lens and a 40X loupe. Basically, I’m seeing "Type 1" thick letters all day, every day - then all of a sudden I see this reverse with thin letters, it stands out. I KNOW it’s different.
If I only found 2 that have thin letters out of all the quarters I looked at, what does that say about your ‘early die state’ theory? Wouldn’t the distribution be a lot more even – let’s say 33%/33%/33%?
dcarr:
If you’re talking about the "Type 2 over Type 1" DDR variety, here’s my question:
How does die wear/erosion/striking quality cause a double imprint of the design where the thickness of the doubling is significant? This is not like machine doubling where the doubling is thin.
Here are some close-ups. There is doubling that is seen visually and it is very apparent, clear & prominent.
The doubled lines are sharp and straight, not jagged.
How does die wear cause these?
From what I’ve seen, die wear is jagged & random. It does not form straight lines that form into letters. These are the die wear areas on the DDR:
Some more questions:
Is there such a thing as early state or late state working hubs? The early state would have thin letters while late state would have thick letters (flattened & spread after many pressings)?
How many squeezes do working dies get?
Have 2 different working hubs been used to make a working die? I know there is Class 3/III Design Hub Doubling which CONECA describes as “when, after the first hubbing with one design, another hubbing follows of a different design, or a slightly altered design.”
If there are 2 squeezes, could squeeze 1 be with a late state working hub and squeeze 2 with an early state working hub?
If doubling occurs from this process of using 2 different stage working hubs of the same design/type, would it be a valid and unique type of doubling?
cladking:
Exactly, thank you. Can you venture a guess or estimate as to what the distribution would be?
dcarr:
I’d like to show the diagnostics of well known varieties:
This is a diagnostic for the 1964 Kennedy Half Accented Hair. It’s a missing serif on the ‘I’ in ‘LIBERTY’ – the one on the other side is still there. On the reverse of the coin, the rays by the stars are weaker. These diagnostics are tiny & minute. Based on your criteria, they would just be ‘die wear’.
https://www.usacoinbook.com/coins/2878/half-dollars/kennedy/1964-P/heavily-accented-hair/
Second is the 1992 Close AM Lincoln Cent. These are the diagnostics. One is the slightly wider gap between the ‘A’ and the ‘M’. The other is the slightly wider gap between Monticello and the initials ‘FG’ and the tiny serif on the ‘G’. Again, these diagnostics are tiny & minute.
Third is the TYPE B Proof Reverse Washington Quarter of the mid 50s to mid 60s. One of the diagnostics is that one of the leaves is barely touching the ‘A’ in ‘DOLLAR’. The difference between this and the TYPE A is also tiny & minute.
Would you also say that these diagnostics are just ‘die wear’?
cladking:
Here are some examples of the feet of the "N" in "UNUM" on a "Type 2" on a Proof specimen:
And examples of the feet of the "N" in "UNUM" on a "Type 2" on a Business Strike specimen:
Didn’t notice them before but are very noticeable differences now that you mention them.
Die Deterioration/Wear:
Why is this the go-to explanation? The logic I’m hearing is this:
There is die deterioration/wear, therefore this coin cannot have doubling.
The fact is all coins I've seen - including ones in Unc Mint Sets - have die deterioration/wear.
Die deterioration/wear does not preclude or exclude a coin from having doubling.
dcarr:
What’s the difference between a weak strike and a soft or mushy strike? Is the latter a subset of the former? Or are they all the same?
How exactly does a weak strike happen? Is it that the pressure is less (say ¾ of the normal load) or that the die doesn’t go as far as it should (perhaps several nanometers short)? I understand that the letters would look fatter as they are lower profile.
And can/does a sharply struck die create a weak strike?
bob:)
All of these shown above have actual differences in the hubs, and so they are "varieties".
The serif on the Kennedy "I" could have broken off the master hub or even the original plaster model. And so all working dies from that hub/model would be missing the serif.
Also, by definition, "proof" coins are limited production from fresh dies. So you will not see a true proof coin that is also a late die state (compared to business-strike coins).
The Washington quarter "Type B" reverse hub is a proof hub. All proofs from those (including very early die state cameo proofs) show a high-relief leaf that is touching the "A". This shows that the two elements were touching on the hub.
As dies erode, the apparent thickness of design elements get thicker, not thinner (especially in a radial direction).
Lapping the die will make design elements appear thinner again, to some extent. But in the lapping process those design elements will lose some of their relief height.
But early die-state business strikes of the "Type A" reverse show a low-relief leaf that is not touching the "A".
And early die-state proof strikes of the "Type B" reverse show a high-relief leaf that is touching the "A".
So that makes them clearly different hubs.
It kinda looks like @nccc may be on to something.
I am seeing a difference in the N of United as nccc mentioned. One has rounded valleys on the N and one has more pointed valleys on the N.
There also appears to be a slight design change with the leaf next to the arrow points.
It appears this variation can be seen from 1982 to 1984
Both designs seem to appear on both proofs & business strikes.
1982 D
1983 D
1984 D
1983 S
1984 S
Welcome aboard.
I’m going to issue a warning.
This content is awesome but I was reading this at 4 am and only on my first cup of coffee and ahhhh Wowzers. Carry on and nice pictures and as always thanks @dcarr for your willingness to share on the forum. I’m really glad to be a part of this. Sooooo much free knowledge 😁
PS. Nice first post 👍🏼
🎶 shout shout, let it all out 🎶
This would be difficult because I've not paid a lot of attention to it. It might also be complicated by the fact that the "type 2" dies were pulled from production with less die wear. If this is true I'd assume that it was caused by them starting with less relief and taking longer to get a lot of wear. Now that you mention it this might have been the nature of the experiment and why they were released to circulation; to gauge longevity of the die and then observe them in circulation.
I can't recall seeing very many highly eroded "type 2" of any date but by 1984 I can remember more.
@nccc
Welcome aboard.
What beautiful pictures.
The clarity is beyond belief.
I will have to do some serious practicing with my smart phone, to get a picture somewhere near what you have posted.
I can see many hours of research by you going into this post.
Thanks for doing so.
It is a very informative topic, and you are in the right place to get some serious facts and opinions from some of the best knowledgeable people this hobby has to offer.
Wayne
Kennedys are my quest...
+1
@ifthevamzarockin, more great pictures!
By 1984 you can learn to spot these from quite a distance away. The first thing you see is the lower relief but at arm's length you can see the distance between the N and UNUM.
Then suddenly in 1985 when the mint report implies they went to single squeeze you see what looks like a type 1/ type 2 hybrid and only one single reverse die. A few years later they mightta gone to a single single squeeze obverse die.
I believe they used one die for each '77 and the Philly failed early. Two dies for each '78. Four or five for '79 and 10+ for 1980 and '81. '77 and '78 are subtle but the '79 and '80 are not. After 1981 they get even more dramatic.
I know I lack a few of these in Unc. They can still all be found in circulation but their condition can be abysmal and they are getting few and far between. Only about 30% of circulating quarters are eagle reverse and most of these are later date. The most common of these in Unc will be around "25,000" and some (''77/ '78) may not exist in Unc and are tough above F. Even the '84 with its huge mintages are not at all common in Unc because most of the few collectors got their coins from mint sets. Ironically only the '81-P appears in mint set about every 160th time meaning the '81-P will be at least the fourth most common.
Only the '82 and '83 issues were "common" in BU rolls and these rolls are mostly gone now.
Perhaps the '82-P wasn't produced because they lowered production standards so much there would be nothing with which to compare a single squeeze specimen. Stunningly few '82-P quarters that were well struck by good dies were produced.
I see. thank you.
Each master hub comes from the plaster model.
Approximately how many master hubs would you expect to be needed to produce 2500 dies?