An unusual saga (and conclusion) regarding two 1924-S Standing Liberty Quarters

dcarr

I was recently looking through coins at a local shop and noticed this (I will refer to it as "coin 1"). What caught my eye at first was an odd-looking mint mark :

.

Here is a close-up of the date and mint-mark area. Up close, it looks like an obvious S/S re-punched mint mark (RPM).

.

So I bought the coin and when I got home I did some research on it. I looked in various references but found no documentation of any 1924-S/S RPM. So I assumed it must be rare. I checked auction sites (Heritage and eBay) and neither had any past sale of a 1924-S RPM quarter. So how could it be that such an obvious variety was never documented ?

But I did find one similar current auction coin on eBay and I bought it as well (I will refer to it as "coin 2") :

.

Upon close inspection, I noted that both coins appeared to be struck from the same dies. But I also noticed something else quite odd. Both coins appear to have a doubled die on the lower obverses.

Note the split points on the stars, notching on the date digits, and doubled gown outline (see arrows) :

.

What are the chances that the mint mark would be doubled by exactly the same amount, and in the same direction, as all the other nearby design elements ? My initial thought was that it would be highly improbable. Normally, dies of this time period are hubbed without any mint mark, and then mint marks (if any) are individually punched into each die. On a specific die, the mint mark punching could be doubled, or the general design could be doubled during hubbing, but not both to exactly the same degree.

But what if a working hub (rather than a working die) had the mint mark punched in it ? If that was done, then all dies from that working hub would have the same mint mark, and the mint mark would be doubled with other design elements if there was any shifting between hubbings on a die. So, despite conventional understanding, I thought that perhaps this was a situation with a mint mark on a hub.

But only for a minute or so. I studied both coins a little more and I noticed an anomaly around the wing tips on both coins. Then the real story was revealed. Both coins are vintage counterfeits. That would explain the doubling of both the mint mark and surrounding design elements. When the counterfeiters made an impression from a genuine coin, they inadvertently doubled part of it when making the die.

I will test the metallic content using XRF when I get a chance. But they appear to be made of good silver. Coin 1 weighs 6.1 grams and coin 2 weighs 6.0 grams. Both have a classic die-struck silver ring to them. The diameter and edge reeding appear normal (although the edge reeding is a little weak on coin 2). I do also note that the obverses appears to be dished a little bit more than normal (genuine) coins of this type.

Closeups of the wing tip area show characteristic pimples. These pimples remind me of similar artifacts on the Privately-Made (vintage counterfeit) Morgan Dollar 1901-O VAM-58: ec2-13-58-222-16.us-east-2.compute.amazonaws.com/wiki/1901-O_VAM-58 .

Could both the Morgan and this 1924-S quarter have been made by the same entity ?

Now I am wondering if some other rare doubled-dies are not US Mint products (especially recently-discovered ones and those that are usually found only in lower grade) ?

.

pcgscacgold

Very cool pick ups. Thanks for the detailed write up. The person that made these and the Morgans most likely produced many and people have them in their collections (maybe unknowingly).

Soldi

Cool coins great story line and detection work.

You know what I noticed right off ?

You take great pictures.

jmlanzaf

Very interesting

AUandAG

Contemporary counterfeit is my guess. Nice that you found two examples.
bob

sparky64

Very interesting and great detailed post. Thank you.

Walkerguy21D

Cool story.
Admittedly I suspected fake from the initial photo.
These seem much better made than most of the contemporary counterfeit walkers from the same era.

RichieURich

Yes, this 1924-S/S/S quarter is a known contemporary counterfeit. Congrats on acquiring two of them!

Namvet69

@dcarr Excellent detective work Dan. And this is why I examine raw coins every chance I get. Is this discovery going to earn a designation of some type? Peace Roy

CaptHenway

If it is good silver there is always the possibility that it was made by the Soviet Union as part of the operation that also made 1923-D and 1930-D dimes, but this is just an idle speculation.

rec78

@RichieURich said:
Yes, this 1924-S/S/S quarter is a known contemporary counterfeit. Congrats on acquiring two of them!

Thanks! New info to me. Is there any reference material on contemporary counterfeits? A lot of known contemporary counterfeits are worth more than the real deal!

IkesT

Coincidentally, this particular counterfeit is featured in the new Cherrypicker's Guide.

LJenkins11

Not my series but a great example of why I hang out in these forums.

Shurke

Great write up, and cool contemporary counterfeits.

streeter

If memory serves, wasn't the price of silver 25¢ an ounce during the Great Depression? A lot of money could be made by manufacturing U.S. coins in worn condition and passing them off into circulation. Doubtful anybody would have checked. My mom worked for 15¢ an hour in the canneries in San Jose during the Depression. 25¢ was precious.

Namvet69

@IkesT might you post a pic of the current CPG info? I've got a 5th edition, which lists a 1930-s "likely repunched mintmark", commenting it might not be genuine.

shortnock

Interesting specimen(s). Likely spurious IMHO.

IkesT

@Namvet69 said:
@IkesT might you post a pic of the current CPG info? I've got a 5th edition, which lists a 1930-s "likely repunched mintmark", commenting it might not be genuine.

I'm wary of posting a pic without permission, but in this context of our educational/research discussion, I believe I can quote from the book under fair use:

p. 161. Fivaz, Bill and J.T. Stanton. 2023. Cherrypicker's Guide to Rare Die Varieties of United States Coins Sixth Edition Volume II. Whitman Publishing LLC.

"1924-S (Counterfeit)

This 'variety' is not a genuine mint product. It is a counterfeit coin that shows an S/S/S mintmark, the style of which is not that of the regular S.

This is a counterfeit coin and is included here for educational purposes only. The grading services will not encapsulate this
piece."

The 1930-s RPM variety you mentioned has been removed from the sixth edition, noting "doubtful authenticity" (p. 158).

dcarr

Strange - when I found the first coin I searched the internet for anything on a "1924-S/S quarter" and I did not get any meaningful results. But now I get a lot of info.

One article mentions a high-grade example being found - but no picture.

dhikewhitney

@RichieURich said:
Yes, this 1924-S/S/S quarter is a known contemporary counterfeit. Congrats on acquiring two of them!

Did the counterfeiter use the same amount of silver in these contemporary counterfeits ?
If so, why ?

dcarr

@dhikewhitney said:

@RichieURich said:
Yes, this 1924-S/S/S quarter is a known contemporary counterfeit. Congrats on acquiring two of them!

Did the counterfeiter use the same amount of silver in these contemporary counterfeits ?
If so, why ?

The silver content meets or exceeds the government standard.
The free market value of the silver content at the time was a little less than half the face value.
So any such coins that were successfully passed into circulation would essentially double their money.

Namvet69

Very interesting. And a cursory weight test was all they had back then.

WAYNEAS

Another educational moment for me.
Thanks for sharing @dcarr
Wayne

dcarr

@dcarr said:

@dhikewhitney said:

@RichieURich said:
Yes, this 1924-S/S/S quarter is a known contemporary counterfeit. Congrats on acquiring two of them!

Did the counterfeiter use the same amount of silver in these contemporary counterfeits ?
If so, why ?

The silver content meets or exceeds the government standard.
The free market value of the silver content at the time was a little less than half the face value.
So any such coins that were successfully passed into circulation would essentially double their money.

I had an XRF test done on both coins.
Both measured as .900 silver, with a trace of lead and the balance copper.
The lead content, although very small, would not be present in a government-issue coin from this era.
The silver for these was likely sourced by melting older items such as foreign coins.

CaptHenway

@dcarr said:

@dcarr said:

@dhikewhitney said:

@RichieURich said:
Yes, this 1924-S/S/S quarter is a known contemporary counterfeit. Congrats on acquiring two of them!

Did the counterfeiter use the same amount of silver in these contemporary counterfeits ?
If so, why ?

The silver content meets or exceeds the government standard.
The free market value of the silver content at the time was a little less than half the face value.
So any such coins that were successfully passed into circulation would essentially double their money.

I had an XRF test done on both coins.
Both measured as .900 silver, with a trace of lead and the balance copper.
The lead content, although very small, would not be present in a government-issue coin from this era.
The silver for these was likely sourced by melting older items such as foreign coins.

Does anybody have one of the 1923-D or 1930-D counterfeit dimes presumed to have been made in the Soviet Union back in the 1930's? They should be given the same test.

alohagary

Interesting

jayPem

Love this forum ❤️

RichieURich

@CaptHenway said:

I had an XRF test done on both coins.
Both measured as .900 silver, with a trace of lead and the balance copper.
The lead content, although very small, would not be present in a government-issue coin from this era.
The silver for these was likely sourced by melting older items such as foreign coins.

Does anybody have one of the 1923-D or 1930-D counterfeit dimes presumed to have been made in the Soviet Union back in the 1930's? They should be given the same test.

I used to own both of the Soviet Union-made counterfeit dimes, 1923-D and 1930-D, but I sold them both.

MtW124

Great detective work and information.

RobertScotLover

This is good stuff, thanks.

Namvet69

Dan thanks for your logical follow thru. This is an important discovery, IMO. It needs an official designation and added to reference works. Peace Roy

Rampage

I have to agree that they both look counterfeit.

CaptHenway

@RichieURich said:

@CaptHenway said:

I had an XRF test done on both coins.
Both measured as .900 silver, with a trace of lead and the balance copper.
The lead content, although very small, would not be present in a government-issue coin from this era.
The silver for these was likely sourced by melting older items such as foreign coins.

Does anybody have one of the 1923-D or 1930-D counterfeit dimes presumed to have been made in the Soviet Union back in the 1930's? They should be given the same test.

I used to own both of the Soviet Union-made counterfeit dimes, 1923-D and 1930-D, but I sold them both.

Any chance the buyer still has them?

BillJones

As soon as I laid eyes on the first one in the OP, my brain flashed COUNTERFEIT! I don’t even need to see the whole coin. I don’t see this as something that was copied from a real coin. It resembles the real thing, but that’s as close as it gets.

Conshyboy

Thanks for the education you just bestowed on me, and for free if I may add

BadMetal

@dcarr - those are 2 excellent examples of a reasonably common (i.e., 50+ still exist), documented, researched, and published die struck contemporary counterfeit U.S. coin variety.

@Namvet69 - There is a book dedicated to contemporary counterfeit quarters, and other small silver denominations, available here: https://badmetalcoin.com/shop?Category=Books. In this book, the 1924-S Quarter is documented as variety 1924-S TD.1-TD.A. It was found by the author to be struck on a sterling silver planchet, consistent with some other counterfeit U.S. silver coins from this Depression era.

@CaptHenway - yes, the buyer of the 1923-D and 1930-D Mercury dimes still owns these two pieces acquired from @RichUrich . Furthermore, there is no evidence that these 2 Mercury dime varieties were ever made under or by the Soviet Union, just like this 1924-S quarter and other similar U.S. denominations from this period, were likely produced domestically when the value of silver was quite low; a similar analogy can be made with the majority of die struck counterfeit Morgan dollars from the turn of the century (both the well-known transfer die Micro-O family varieties, but also the majority of documented hand-made die varieties, of which the 1901-O that @dcarr owns is one such example).

Here is 1 of the examples I own which I also have photos. I think I own 2 other examples but without photos.

jesbroken

I've noticed that many, many of the 24 S SLQ's have a little mark at the top of the S(unlike your doubling) and top left of S mintmark and many with the "clashed or dropped E" as some sellers call them. Photos below. Seen these for years and very common, but never a completely doubled 'S' until now. Thanks for sharing.
Jim

CaptHenway

@BadMetal said:
@dcarr - those are 2 excellent examples of a reasonably common (i.e., 50+ still exist), documented, researched, and published die struck contemporary counterfeit U.S. coin variety.

@Namvet69 - There is a book dedicated to contemporary counterfeit quarters, and other small silver denominations, available here: https://badmetalcoin.com/shop?Category=Books. In this book, the 1924-S Quarter is documented as variety 1924-S TD.1-TD.A. It was found by the author to be struck on a sterling silver planchet, consistent with some other counterfeit U.S. silver coins from this Depression era.

@CaptHenway - yes, the buyer of the 1923-D and 1930-D Mercury dimes still owns these two pieces acquired from @RichUrich . Furthermore, there is no evidence that these 2 Mercury dime varieties were ever made under or by the Soviet Union, just like this 1924-S quarter and other similar U.S. denominations from this period, were likely produced domestically when the value of silver was quite low; a similar analogy can be made with the majority of die struck counterfeit Morgan dollars from the turn of the century (both the well-known transfer die Micro-O family varieties, but also the majority of documented hand-made die varieties, of which the 1901-O that @dcarr owns is one such example).

Here is 1 of the examples I own which I also have photos. I think I own 2 other examples but without photos.

Just for future reference, can we get a good elemental analysis of the 1923-D and 1930-D Dimes, for comparison to @dcarr's test results, assuming he still has them?

While we are at it, can we get the same test done on one of the "Small o" counterfeits? These things should be available for future researchers.

THanks,

TD

BuffaloIronTail

@BillJones said:
As soon as I laid eyes on the first one in the OP, my brain flashed COUNTERFEIT! I don’t even need to see the whole coin. I don’t see this as something that was copied from a real coin. It resembles the real thing, but that’s as close as it gets.

I agree. Before reading the article, I thought that the coins pictured looked "strange" to begin with (and I ain't that good).

Pete