I found a 1960-D 25C that closely resembles a 1941-D 25C DDO, FS-801. What do you think?
Maxvan1
Posts: 36 ✭
I found a 1960-D Washington Quarter that appears to have all the die markers of a 1941-D 25C DDO, FS-801 except the fields have been worked and the Mint Mark repunched. I found this by accident trying to put together die crack progression sets. I believe this could the same die set, but please let me know what you think...
Here is a link to the 1941-D 25C DDO, FS-801 TrueView Pictures.
Here is a link to the 1941-D 25C DDO, FS-801 description on Variety Vista.
Below are pictures of the 1960-D that I found... I compared these pictures with the ones on Variety Vista, and I think that's it.
The most obvious marker is the die crack through PLURBIUS, which has progressed significantly.
The die crack through the Eagle's Head is still present, but it appears the right field has been polished. 
The Mint Mark obviously does NOT match, but it also looks like field behind it was polished and the Mark repunched.
The doubling looks like an exact match (at least to me), albeit more worn than it was in 1941...
The obverse die markers even match (although obviously a different date!)...
ANACS holder for now, but I really prefer PCGS for viewing under a microscope.
Let me know when you think! If this is a match to the 1941-D, then I'm pretty sure it exists for 1959-D as well...
PS: I posted this earlier, but I think the original discussion was somehow deleted when I tried to add more pictures, sorry if this is now a double post...
Comments
IMO, it's just some die cracks at common points. Maybe some MD, I don't think it's anything.
Type collector, mainly into Seated. -formerly Ownerofawheatiehorde. Good BST transactions with: mirabela, OKCC, MICHAELDIXON, Gerard
Massive magnification can't make this coin anything of any importance. The current "error" and "variety" nonsense is getting old very fast.
It's not "nonsense" to a lot of people, though. This new member comes here for advice, seems passionate about his find, and you just crap on that enthusiasm like this? It may not be your cup of tea, but he's not selling anything or promoting himself, right? He took excellent photos, too. There's a whole army of collectors that enjoy varieties that require a strong loupe to see.
I dabble in them myself.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
No: The various catalog numbers are issued for the specific year and mintmark.
When you count your fingers and when you count your toes, both counts have a number 3. They are not the same, just the same number.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
Lots of die cracks in the same places.... but not the same dies IMO.
The TrueView photos show multiple examples of the 1941-D, from early stage to late stage. It appears the die was pretty well used up and worn out and discarded.
Your 1960-D quarter is a somewhat early die state, with clear sharp die cracks. Not only that, but pattern of the die cracks are different. The obverse die crack is also at a different slant. So, not the same dies. Regardless, an interesting coin, and thanks for sharing the photos. The varieties ARE of great interest to many collectors!
So what I am getting is that you think the mint held onto a worn out die set from 1941, somehow changed the date on the die and reused that worn out die in 1960? Seems highly unlikely to me.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Thanks everyone! I have a hard time agreeing the 1960 is a "somewhat early" die state when it's covered with deep die cracks and cuds, but appreciate the input.
I still believe this is the same die as the 1941... I do agree there's some reaching for "varieties" but what drew me to this particular coin was the deep cracks...
Anyways.
If your opinion was already formed, why did you ask expert opinions?
I am unconvinced by these so-called experts, is all. Not to dis anyone if they are in-fact experts, but to me they're just names on a forum; they could be kids for all I know. Stating that the coin is an early die state when it's clearly not; I'm unconvinced of their opinion...
It clearly has the doubling. It clearly has the die cracks. I know it's hard to see in the pictures, but the fields are lower than typical, leading me to believe they've been polished down.
I do agree the obverse doesn't fit, but the reverse looks like it. Identical doubling.
I should've sent it to PCGS for imaging... Next time.
In order for that to be the same die as 1941-D FS-801, the badly cracked, near end-of-life 1941-D reverse die would have been pulled from the press and stored somewhere at the mint for 19 years. Then, despite a large quantity of brand-new reverse dies on-hand at the Denver mint for 1960 quarter production, this now 19-year old badly cracked die would have been located, put back in the press, and used to strike 1960-D coins.
Do you really think that happened?
Nothing wrong with thinking outside the box, but we have to be realistic. I don't think the cracks match. They are in a similar location but not exact. Look at the crack in PLURIBUS, on the 1941 it intersects the B below the centerline of the letter, on the 1960 it is above the centerline. The other crack hits the eagle's head lower on the 1960. The fact that the cracks are also in a similar location on the obverse, which clearly must be a different die, points to the fact that these are just common locations for die cracks.
The original 1941 die was impressed with a mintmark and shipped to Denver.
I do not believe that the 1941 die was shipped back to Philadelphia, had the mintmark re-punched, then sent back to Denver for use in 1960.
It's the one thing that makes the whole premise untenable.
Don't forget that only the Philadelphia Mint was where dies were produced back then.
Pete
The forum needs someone to expose these pesky kids. Thank you.
To be fair, no one here claimed to be an expert, but they did answer your question correctly. We have several young numismatists on the Forum with precocious abilities; when they give advice, they usually know what they're talking about. If you reject the opinions of all the people who are willing to answer your question, you are left only with people who are not willing to answer your question. Food for thought...
As @Ownerofawheatiehorde said, your coin has MD, which stands for mechanical doubling or machine doubling. To learn more about this common form of doubling, follow the links below:
https://www.error-ref.com/machine-doubling/
https://doubleddie.com/144822.html
If after reading the information about mechanical doubling and the comments given here about die cracks, etc. you are still convinced that your coin is a doubled die and struck by 1941-D dies, then it is time to send your coin to PCGS for certification. Some people are able to learn for free, while others need to pay tuition.
Fair, but I was responding to Alans comment "why did you ask expert opinions?" ... I'm not trying to be argumentative or not take advice, but a few people were offering a conclusory opinion and I was simply responding that I was not not convinced. That's all...
I do appreciate your input about mechanical doubling and I considered that. Do you think this is mechanical doubling? It looks exactly the same as the 1941-D FS-801 to me, but maybe it's just a coincidence? (Get it, COINcidence? Dumb pun, I know...).
And I still looks like the field to the right of the Eagle's Head is similarly raised in that triangular shape. It's hard to see on the 1960 because it's a bad picture, but I can clearly see a darker raised area to the right of the Eagle's Head that closely matches that of the 1941... What do you think that is on the 1961? Again, maybe it's a COINcidence?
It seems that the word "exactly" means something different to you than it does to me.
As others have said, I encourage you to send your coin to out hosts for grading and attribution if you disagree with the answers you are getting here.
Maybe exactly was overstated, but it's very close. I'm not going to send it to grading companies -- they're not going to stick their neck out like that; they wait until it's published in a book... I might send it over to someone over at CONECA who isn't a boomer snob, though.
Yes, the circled doubling on your images is mechanical doubling.
If you are referring to the feather that sticks out to the right of the eagle's head, that is part of the normal design on all Washington quarters. Your GIF image clearly shows that the die cracks do not match, by the way.
Your coin has already been submitted to ANACS. If that was by you, I assume that you would have purchased variety attribution. The cert page clearly shows no variety designated for this coin:
If you did not, why not send it back to ANACS and ask them to attribute it as a doubled die? If you don't like their opinion, you can send it on to PCGS, then NGC and ICG. The amount of tuition paid on this coin is determined by you - some people need to pay more tuition than others.
I can't tell if the OP is serious or if this is a high level troll job. His photography skills would indicate that he is not a newbie. However, for anyone (newbies included) to think that the mint would save a worn out die for 19 years and then reuse it seems dubious at best.
Philippians 4:4-7
As I already stated above, grading companies won't put a variety designation unless they recognize it. I can't just send them a coin and say "Hey will you recognize this!?" ... Even if they thought I was right, they wouldn't put their neck out. They wait until it's published in Cherrypicker's Guide or similar.
The fact that you're (collectivelly) pointing me toward grading companies to get this attributed tells me you don't know what you're talking about. If I were to want this officially attributed I would sent it to some individual, a known numismatist, who might give their personal opinion as to what it is. That person might share it with an authorit of a book, and if it gets published in a book, and recognized by Cherrypicker's (for example), then and only then would a grading company attribute it.
And to back up what I'm saying about grading companies not attributing unknown varieties, for the noobs out there: "To submit coins, verify particular coin is recognized under this program by referring to the list below."
Geez. I think I'm done here. I'll post thoughts and findings elsewhere.
How do you look at this and go "Machine doubling" "Idiot noob"?
Look at the field to the right of the head! Look at how the die cracks align (albeit progressed)!
Okay now I'm done. Bye.
You seem pretty knowledgeable about certain things, so in your expert opinion why do you think the mint would save a worn out die for 19 years and then reuse it?
Philippians 4:4-7
I'm no expert, but I'm also no idiot.
If I'd venture a guess, it was a mistake. They probably put it in storage in 1941 and were in need of a die in 1960. The Denver mint didn't make dies until the 1990's and I believe the Denver mint was actually low on good quality dies in the late 50's / early 60's which is why it's hard to find high MS grades for those years. Look at the population report for 1960-D coins... There are only thirty (30) PCGS coins in MS67.
Some Mint worker probably saw the die in a closet, had no idea of the origin, but said "Hey what about that old die in the closet?" so they polished the fields, repunched the mint mark, and there it was. That's total conjecture, but I don't think it's far out to think the Mint might have stored and reused an old die...
Nice fairytale.
Philippians 4:4-7
Good one.
A place where there are no kids, no boomers, and they will give you a different opinion on this coin? Good luck.
Nice fairytale, right?
The mint saved broken dies for 19 years, four years of which were during WWII when they were scrambling for scrap metal for the war effort?
Why would they have repunched the mintmark? Also, the mintmarks were apparently added in Philadelphia. So was the die found in a closet in Denver and then shipped back to Philly and then back to Denver?
You are before several of those guys as you post, with scant respect for them, at that.
Maybe so, but the scant respect runs both ways.
There are so many new "doubled dies" out there now that the term is really starting to lose meaning. The new 1917 D DDR FS-801 comes to mind. I have now many Walkers and Franklins that exhibit better and stronger "doubling" of the motto than this coin. Are there really this many new DD coins or is this just a way to expand the series much like the VAM coins. For me the 1955 Lincoln Doubled Die will continue to be the standard when reviewing DD coins. This coin together with the 1972 and 1995 cents are, for me, the best examples of doubled die coins. Yes there are doubled dates, the 1916 Buffalo immediately comes to mind, and is awesome, but the previously mentioned 1917 D quarter barely fills the bill. As always, it is just my opinion, I could be wrong!
Die crack is clearly not in the same place on the "S".
It’s not the same.
The forum members doubted the coin.
You doubted kids, boomers, so-calleds, and in-facts.
Stick around and you’ll see.
It took me all of 10 sec. to see the die cracks were not the same. Seriously, with the wealth of knowledge available here, why do these new OP's wanna argue the point ?
Same way any Denver RPM occurs... Maybe it was in a closet in Philly.
I mean look, I'm not trying to be disrespectful but not a single person in here has explained how the triangular shape to the right of the Eagle Head could look so similar. Does anyone else see that? I was hoping someone would take a shot at explaining that without pointing me toward sites about machine doubling... I have two of the 1960-D and the second one has a die crack in the field even closer to the 1941-D (see below). You can also see that field is raised in the middle by how the light hits it.
Look at the die crack through PLURBUS on the 1941-D in the .GIF file I posted above, it appears the 1941-D has the same cracks to me. Yes, the dominant cracks are different, but they have die cracks that run on the same paths to warrant a further look. Or that's how I see it at least...
Ultimately the truth is what the jury finds... I'm just trying to make my case, but if the jury finds that it's just machine doubling and coincidentally similar die cracks... I'll have to accept that.
The raised area in the field I am talking about appears as a dark area on the 1960-D in this GIF. The first picture is the 1960-D from ANACS. The other coin is the 1941-D from ValueView.
Thanks, guys.
Have you tried CoinTalk? It’s not as busy as here but there are some knowledgeable folks on there.
*
*
*
Actually, the letters don’t match the one on the 1941-D. Look at the notching and obvious doubling on the bottom leg of both the E and S of the 1941-D. Your coin doesn’t have this. It would need to match exactly in order for it to be a doubled die.
*
*
*
Again, for this to be what you say it is, the diagnostics need to be exact, not just close. These diagnostics are on the die, how could the position change from exact to close to the same place. The die break running through the S is in a different spot on both coins. The crack is closer to the top loupe of the S on your coin than it is on the 1941-D
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
There’s a million out there, anyhow. They call ‘em speared, laser, smoking eagles.
You, Sir, are an idiot. We know that to be unequivocally true.
Many of the people who post on these forums are not "just names", we know who they are. When the TPGs send out coins for expert authentication and review, whom do they send them to? Sometimes the people posting on the forums. When you read an error coin article in a magazine, who is the author? That gentleman posts on the forums too.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
Thanks, guy. There are lot of people post on forums. Some are experts, some are not. My point was that I don't know who's who. I didn't personally attack anyone...
Thanks again, all.... On to the next one... Got some good ones coming in the mail.
Thanks. Appreciate the explanation.
On to the next.
@Maxvan1
I understand your enthusiasm. Really, I do. When you find something that gets your heart racing, it is easy to come up with wild theories to make the discovery something it is not. Ive been there. Unfortunately, your theory makes very little sense, and I'm sorry for that.
You take great pictures and communicate very clearly. You can be a valuable member here if you take advice from the members who have decades of experience. It's not "the gospel," and members make mistakes like everyone else. But people are giving you good advice here.
I think things have gotten out of hand on this thread with the "idiot" and "boomer" remarks. Befpre the pile on reaches a fever pitch, let's tone down the rhetoric and keep it positive! Before somebody loses their posting privileges . As you've said, "On to the next!"
Good luck
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
I appreciate your searching, study, and finds. Despite disparaging comments, stay the course.
ANACS will if Wiles attributes it as 'discovery piece'
varietyvista.com/Attribution%20Services.htm