2004-D High/Low Leaf Wisconsin Quarters

OAKSTAR

Let's reopen this investigation.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury:

Here we have examples of the high and low leaf variety 2004-D Wisconsin quarter. Some research indicated these two images were added to the working die by a mint engraver. Some documentation indicates a possible die flaw or gouge. Not much evidence of either seems to exist.

Could these working dies have been intentionally or maliciously manipulated by a mint engraver without authorization? Aren't all modifications, alterations or repairs to working dies recorded, logged and documented? If so, wouldn't mint management have been made aware of this? Basically, shouldn't the who, why, where and when be documented somewhere?

This type of variety would seemed to have been intentionally fabricated. Is revealing the cause of this classified? What's all the hush hush about? What possible reasons would the mint have, not to voluntarily disclose this information? Not having control of the workforce

There are many examples of these types of varieties. Would or could this type of coin manipulation be an advantage to the mint?.. Do you think it could be secretly sanctioned by mint management to generate an interest and curiosity for the coin collecting community?

Whether sanctioned or not, there's no doubt in my mind that mint management and maybe the engravers themselves are sitting back watching the reaction of the numismatic community (like this one) of their intentional actions or mistakes.

Typekat

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury:

I will accept without quibble the admission of photographic evidence (in this cold case) referred to in My Esteemed Colleague’s first sentence. However, the rest of his opening remarks at first slander an unnamed Mint engraver, then dispute the prima facie evidence of the artistic embellishments themselves, and go on to impute intentional malicious behavior, manipulations, and secret sanctions by Mint officers also unnamed.

Further, I believe that there was an extensive and inconclusive Mint investigation in 2005. Remember, two taps of steel tool upon the steel dies in question is all it took to create these varieties. I would venture to say that the artist/perpetrator of this deed is probably not present in this courtroom.

I move to dismiss this stale case of ‘crime without a victim,’ unless My Esteemed Colleague intends to present new concrete evidence here today. Thank you.

—————

IMHO, the additional leaves of these two varieties are not die clashes, nor is there any explanation for the presence of the additional leaves via something that might have occurred during production of the coins on the ‘factory floor’, so to speak.

Others may remember this variety being discussed extensively on this forum back then, and could share a link, or chime in.

Truth is, making those extra marks on the dies could have been done by one production room employee (not an Engraver, but a worker with access and opportunity to ‘make his mark’). With the right tool, it might have taken less than a minute.

I was in Phoenix at the time they were released, and the bag of Wi-D quarters that we obtained for our shop’s retail stock was roughly a 15% mixture of High and Low Leaf varieties.

The other locations that they were distributed in that I am aware of are Tucson and San Antonio TX. The PL examples that NGC graded (the earliest strikes) were primarily, if not entirely, from the San Antonio area.

CRHer700

Don't forget the 2004-D dime with a suspicious mark on Roosevelt's ear!

LeeBone

These were intentionally made IMO. Too much resemblance to leaves to not be. Shenanigans at The Mint? Hard to believe...NOT.

OAKSTAR

@Typekat said:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury:

I will accept without quibble the admission of photographic evidence (in this cold case) referred to in My Esteemed Colleague’s first sentence. However, the rest of his opening remarks at first slander an unnamed Mint engraver, then dispute the prima facie evidence of the artistic embellishments themselves, and go on to impute intentional malicious behavior, manipulations, and secret sanctions by Mint officers also unnamed.

Further, I believe that there was an extensive and inconclusive Mint investigation in 2005. Remember, two taps of steel tool upon the steel dies in question is all it took to create these varieties. I would venture to say that the artist/perpetrator of this deed is probably not present in this courtroom.

I move to dismiss this stale case of ‘crime without a victim,’ unless My Esteemed Colleague intends to present new concrete evidence here today. Thank you.

—————

Overruled! Sit down or I will have you removed from the courtroom by the bailiff! 🤣 😂

Typekat

well…still looking for

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/mixer-truck-transport-cement-casting-place-677621230

concrete evidence!

LJenkins11

If these coins fit, then you must not acquit!

OAKSTAR

I agree.

Goldminers

These are clearly added and not gouges, but with fairly nice details especially on the low leaf version. These two are MS66+ after crossing over from 67 NGC's.

dcarr

My opinion is that these were entirely accidental.
I suspect that this sort of die damage happens from time to time.
Usually, the Mint inspectors notice the flaws and cull such dies from use.
However, in this case, the stray gouges happened to look like part of the intended design and so they slipped past inspection.

Goldminers

Some 66+

@dcarr said:
My opinion is that these were entirely accidental.
I suspect that this sort of die damage happens from time to time.
Usually, the Mint inspectors notice the flaws and cull such dies from use.
However, in this case, the stray gouges happened to look like part of the intended design and so they slipped past inspection.

Does this lower leaf really look like damage to you? If so, I am very surprised.

IkesT

@OAKSTAR said:

Could these working dies have been intentionally or maliciously manipulated by a mint engraver without authorization? Aren't all modifications, alterations or repairs to working dies recorded, logged and documented? If so, wouldn't mint management have been made aware of this? Basically, shouldn't the who, why, where and when be documented somewhere?

Just a gut feeling, but my expectation would be that something like this would not be documented either way.

fathom

Mint investigation found no wrongdoing from employees other than press operator was out to lunch......literally.

Obviously purposeful shenanigans though, no doubt.

OAKSTAR

@fathom said:
Mint investigation found no wrongdoing from employees other than press operator was out to lunch......literally.

Have there been articles or documentation written on this?

OAKSTAR

The question that plagued many at the time of the discovery still persists. What caused the variety in the first place? The shape, size, detail, and placement of the die gouges are too perfect for coincidence. While it is possible that it could happen accidentally, chances are that a die problem striking incident is not a cause. Others have suggested die clashing but due to the sharpness, placement, and lack of other die clashing evidence, it is not likely. A more likely possibility is intentional die damage and manipulation. The true cause may never be known.

https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/848/

Thanks Mike!

fathom

@OAKSTAR said:

@fathom said:
Mint investigation found no wrongdoing from employees other than press operator was out to lunch......literally.

Have there been articles or documentation written on this?

I tried to include the numismatc news article but the forum software said under review.

It's out there on the web. Repeats pretty much the NGC article.

HIGHLOWLEAVES

This is the Twenty Year Anniversary of the 2004 D Wisconsin Extra Leaf Quarters and the elusive 2004 D Extra Image through Roosevelt's ear Dime that was dispursed in the San Diego, CA area back in 2004. The member's posts have stirred up emotion even to an old follower of the historic background of these rare collector examples. I beleive what Paul Harvey used to say "And here is the rest of the story". In the August, 2007 "The Numismatist", the Mystery Of The Wisconsin Extra Leaf Quarters' origin was fully explained from a scientific approach.

I enjoy reading all of the message board discussions concerning these coins. Thanks.

davewesen

@dcarr said:
My opinion is that these were entirely accidental.
I suspect that this sort of die damage happens from time to time.
Usually, the Mint inspectors notice the flaws and cull such dies from use.
However, in this case, the stray gouges happened to look like part of the intended design and so they slipped past inspection.

That was my theory as well. Some metal swarf (turnings, filings, or shavings) from the machine shop got accidentally wiped on the master die. I am not sure they still make dies that way though.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=_OGNQhnopY0

Rick Snow was pretty sure it was intentionally made. He made an interesting video on value and rarity over first 5 years.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=0qAI1yvJZgg

dcarr

@Goldminers said:
Some 66+

@dcarr said:
My opinion is that these were entirely accidental.
I suspect that this sort of die damage happens from time to time.
Usually, the Mint inspectors notice the flaws and cull such dies from use.
However, in this case, the stray gouges happened to look like part of the intended design and so they slipped past inspection.

Does this lower leaf really look like damage to you? If so, I am very surprised.

.

Yes, accidental damage. The circular shape looks to me like an impact from the end of a bolt.

In fact, I have used the end of a bolt, tilted slightly from vertical, to make a crescent shape on silver bars (see the crescent shape above the "M/M" as a reference to Moonlight Mint and also symbolic of the Mexico City mint mark):

.

It seems the majority of people think thus was intentional. Most have never actually worked in a mint. But, based on my 20 years of operating every phase of the minting process in my own mint, I say it was accidental.

.

Fraz

@dcarr said:

@Goldminers said:

Does this lower leaf really look like damage to you? If so, I am very surprised.

Yes, accidental damage. The circular shape looks to me like an impact from the end of a bolt.

It seems the majority of people think thus was intentional. Most have never actually worked in a mint. But, based on my 20 years of operating every phase of the minting process in my own mint, I say it was accidental.

Hard to dispute. The lower leaf’s edges do not blend into the design. Thanks, we’re fortunate to have your experience at hand.

Kurisu

Love this thread...it's one of my CRHunting goals.
Always hoping to find one in the wild...

HIGHLOWLEAVES

We have a very interesting discussion as to the origin of the Wi. Extra Leaf Quarters in progress !! If you study the Inspector Generals report that was released in 2006, you will read that the High Leaf Defective coin/die was discovered minting the defective quarters and then and a mint employee stopped the press and placed an example on top of the press. Then, on that Thanksgiving weekend in 2004, he left the minting area and went to lunch. When he returned to his position in the minting area, he discovered that some one or more employees had continued to stamp out the Extra High Leaf Quarters. Was all of this a normal practice or planned ahead of time ? Food for thought......

Goldminers

@dcarr,

I assume you are saying the master die did not have the extra leaf in the design, but the working dies had semi-circular bolt damage on their surface before the master die was pressed into them.

Wouldn't it be unusual for two different working die blanks to have such damage prior to being created by the master?
It seems like someone would have noticed they did not have smooth working surfaces to start.

Thanks for adding some additional clarification for those of us who do not have your minting experience.

Namvet69

I'm seeing the errant leaf design to the right of the taller leaf, which implies that it was a design element under the tall leaf. Can someone measure the length and arch of both the low and high leaf so see if they match. Peace Roy

Fraz

Why is this? (Corn husks don’t attach with rivets.)

dcarr

@Fraz said:
Why is this? (Corn husks don’t attach with rivets.)

.

The bolt damage occurred to a working die after it was hubbed.
The fields of the design are the highest point on a die, and most prone to die gouges, etc.
The apparent "rivets" are an extension of the bolt arc imparted onto the valley between the leaves (this valley is also a high point on the die). The bolt arc does not appear to pass in front of the leaf because the edge of the leaf is a deeper part of the die and the impact was not hard enough to reach that depth.

.

BAJJERFAN

@Typekat said:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury:

I will accept without quibble the admission of photographic evidence (in this cold case) referred to in My Esteemed Colleague’s first sentence. However, the rest of his opening remarks at first slander an unnamed Mint engraver, then dispute the prima facie evidence of the artistic embellishments themselves, and go on to impute intentional malicious behavior, manipulations, and secret sanctions by Mint officers also unnamed.

Further, I believe that there was an extensive and inconclusive Mint investigation in 2005. Remember, two taps of steel tool upon the steel dies in question is all it took to create these varieties. I would venture to say that the artist/perpetrator of this deed is probably not present in this courtroom.

I move to dismiss this stale case of ‘crime without a victim,’ unless My Esteemed Colleague intends to present new concrete evidence here today. Thank you.

—————

IMHO, the additional leaves of these two varieties are not die clashes, nor is there any explanation for the presence of the additional leaves via something that might have occurred during production of the coins on the ‘factory floor’, so to speak.

Others may remember this variety being discussed extensively on this forum back then, and could share a link, or chime in.

Truth is, making those extra marks on the dies could have been done by one production room employee (not an Engraver, but a worker with access and opportunity to ‘make his mark’). With the right tool, it might have taken less than a minute.

I was in Phoenix at the time they were released, and the bag of Wi-D quarters that we obtained for our shop’s retail stock was roughly a 15% mixture of High and Low Leaf varieties.

The other locations that they were distributed in that I am aware of are Tucson and San Antonio TX. The PL examples that NGC graded (the earliest strikes) were primarily, if not entirely, from the San Antonio area.

I don't believe that asking if it COULD have been done by a mint engraver constitutes slander as he didn't definitively say that they did it.

dcarr

@BAJJERFAN said:

@Typekat said:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury:

I will accept without quibble the admission of photographic evidence (in this cold case) referred to in My Esteemed Colleague’s first sentence. However, the rest of his opening remarks at first slander an unnamed Mint engraver, then dispute the prima facie evidence of the artistic embellishments themselves, and go on to impute intentional malicious behavior, manipulations, and secret sanctions by Mint officers also unnamed.

Further, I believe that there was an extensive and inconclusive Mint investigation in 2005. Remember, two taps of steel tool upon the steel dies in question is all it took to create these varieties. I would venture to say that the artist/perpetrator of this deed is probably not present in this courtroom.

I move to dismiss this stale case of ‘crime without a victim,’ unless My Esteemed Colleague intends to present new concrete evidence here today. Thank you.

—————

IMHO, the additional leaves of these two varieties are not die clashes, nor is there any explanation for the presence of the additional leaves via something that might have occurred during production of the coins on the ‘factory floor’, so to speak.

Others may remember this variety being discussed extensively on this forum back then, and could share a link, or chime in.

Truth is, making those extra marks on the dies could have been done by one production room employee (not an Engraver, but a worker with access and opportunity to ‘make his mark’). With the right tool, it might have taken less than a minute.

I was in Phoenix at the time they were released, and the bag of Wi-D quarters that we obtained for our shop’s retail stock was roughly a 15% mixture of High and Low Leaf varieties.

The other locations that they were distributed in that I am aware of are Tucson and San Antonio TX. The PL examples that NGC graded (the earliest strikes) were primarily, if not entirely, from the San Antonio area.

I don't believe that asking if it COULD have been done by a mint engraver constitutes slander as he didn't definitively say that they did it.

OTOH anyone with functional vision can see that the placement of the leaf in both varieties is too perfect to have been coincidence.

.

Perfectly-placed accidents happen all the time. Die gouges that are not "perfectly placed" are easier to spot and are generally culled from the working die inventory. Only die gouges such as this that are "perfectly placed" and naturally camouflaged will get past the inspectors.

Its like this:
People often shoot guns into the air. But you only hear about it on the very rare occasion when a bullet comes down and hits someone. Was such a shot too "perfectly placed" to be a coincidence ?

.

Typekat

Thanks to @dcarr for bringing some actual (concrete!) working mint experience to this discussion.

But still we are left with the question of how two different working dies would receive similar but not identical angled blows at virtually the same location on the dies, by two loose bolts, without any human intervention. Or is this scenario about one very busy bolt?

It’s not impossible, of course, but certainly highly unlikely that such an unprecedented event would happen twice in the same week at the Denver Mint.

Plus both extra marks are placed in such a way to resemble the leaves on the cornstalks

So, I have to agree with @BAJJERFAN:

“… the placement of the leaf in both varieties is too perfect to have been coincidence.”

BAJJERFAN

@Typekat said:
Thanks to @dcarr for bringing some actual (concrete!) working mint experience to this discussion.

But still we are left with the question of how two different working dies would receive similar but not identical angled blows at virtually the same location on the dies, by two loose bolts, without any human intervention. Or is this scenario about one very busy bolt?

It’s not impossible, of course, but certainly highly unlikely that such an unprecedented event would happen twice in the same week at the Denver Mint.

Plus both extra marks are placed in such a way to resemble the leaves on the cornstalks

So, I have to agree with @BAJJERFAN:

“… the placement of the leaf in both varieties is too perfect to have been coincidence.”

The bolt had divine guidance. It could just as easily been an uninstalled bolt from the tool room and a hammer tap. The bolt had help.

BAJJERFAN

@dcarr said:

@BAJJERFAN said:

@Typekat said:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury:

I will accept without quibble the admission of photographic evidence (in this cold case) referred to in My Esteemed Colleague’s first sentence. However, the rest of his opening remarks at first slander an unnamed Mint engraver, then dispute the prima facie evidence of the artistic embellishments themselves, and go on to impute intentional malicious behavior, manipulations, and secret sanctions by Mint officers also unnamed.

Further, I believe that there was an extensive and inconclusive Mint investigation in 2005. Remember, two taps of steel tool upon the steel dies in question is all it took to create these varieties. I would venture to say that the artist/perpetrator of this deed is probably not present in this courtroom.

I move to dismiss this stale case of ‘crime without a victim,’ unless My Esteemed Colleague intends to present new concrete evidence here today. Thank you.

—————

IMHO, the additional leaves of these two varieties are not die clashes, nor is there any explanation for the presence of the additional leaves via something that might have occurred during production of the coins on the ‘factory floor’, so to speak.

Others may remember this variety being discussed extensively on this forum back then, and could share a link, or chime in.

Truth is, making those extra marks on the dies could have been done by one production room employee (not an Engraver, but a worker with access and opportunity to ‘make his mark’). With the right tool, it might have taken less than a minute.

I was in Phoenix at the time they were released, and the bag of Wi-D quarters that we obtained for our shop’s retail stock was roughly a 15% mixture of High and Low Leaf varieties.

The other locations that they were distributed in that I am aware of are Tucson and San Antonio TX. The PL examples that NGC graded (the earliest strikes) were primarily, if not entirely, from the San Antonio area.

I don't believe that asking if it COULD have been done by a mint engraver constitutes slander as he didn't definitively say that they did it.

OTOH anyone with functional vision can see that the placement of the leaf in both varieties is too perfect to have been coincidence.

.

Perfectly-placed accidents happen all the time. Die gouges that are not "perfectly placed" are easier to spot and are generally culled from the working die inventory. Only die gouges such as this that are "perfectly placed" and naturally camouflaged will get past the inspectors.

Its like this:
People often shoot guns into the air. But you only hear about it on the very rare occasion when a bullet comes down and hits someone. Was such a shot too "perfectly placed" to be a coincidence ?

.

But 2 perfectly placed die gouges on the same coin to make it look like it was part of the same design? Compare to the odds of winning the PowerBall jackpot with the same numbers 2 times in a row, but not quite that big. Too bad there isn't a coin with both leaves. Actually people shoot guns into the air. Like jumping in a lake. In order to do that you have to already be in a lake. If you shoot a million times from the same place and don't hit anyone with the first shot you probably wont with the millionth shot. Depends I suppose if your standing in the middle of a full stadium or in the middle of nowhere.

OAKSTAR

@HIGHLOWLEAVES said:
We have a very interesting discussion as to the origin of the Wi. Extra Leaf Quarters in progress !! If you study the Inspector Generals report that was released in 2006, you will read that the High Leaf Defective coin/die was discovered minting the defective quarters and then and a mint employee stopped the press and placed an example on top of the press. Then, on that Thanksgiving weekend in 2004, he left the minting area and went to lunch. When he returned to his position in the minting area, he discovered that some one or more employees had continued to stamp out the Extra High Leaf Quarters. Was all of this a normal practice or planned ahead of time ? Food for thought......

Really? That's interesting. That was in an Inspector Generals report? I'd like to read that. Do you have a link to that report?

PapiNE

Whatever it was, it wasn't accidental. Did it happen around the time of an annual holiday office party?

OAKSTAR

@dcarr - Thanks for your detailed explanation. It's as good as any, I've heard over the years. There are a few (very few) professional graders or attributers that will put their personal and professional reputations on the line for something like this. The vast majority (IMO) won't touch it or go out on a limb! I don't believe the major TPG'ers will touch them either, until the CPG or another reputable grader or attributer has verified, documented or published it. Maybe something like the history of the Cheerio's dollar tail feathers modification. 👍

CRHer700

@Goldminers said:
@dcarr,

I assume you are saying the master die did not have the extra leaf in the design, but the working dies had semi-circular bolt damage on their surface before the master die was pressed into them.

Wouldn't it be unusual for two different working die blanks to have such damage prior to being created by the master?
It seems like someone would have noticed they did not have smooth working surfaces to start.

Thanks for adding some additional clarification for those of us who do not have your minting experience.

I have to think that it was intentional, as how often do three different dies from the same year and mint end up with suspiciously similar post-hubbing marks? In fact, this is the only instance that I know of.

CRHer700

This is the 2004-D dime image that I have.(From Cherrypicker’s Guide)

Fraz

I figure that @dcarr describes a coil or arc of the thread from a bolt, not the bolt.

cladking

The press that made these coins was shut off when the operator went to lunch after having noticed the problem. The press was turned back on before he returned and the coins sent on their way. My understanding is that this is most unusual for a press to be operated without an operator.

I believe at least two and perhaps more employees were involved with the intentional production of these coins. This would make them "unofficial" type coins.

The mint never announced any reprimands or firings over the situation.

HIGHLOWLEAVES

cladking is a person whom I truly respect. He has been sharing his thoughts with us for many years in a most helpful manner. There are many people who have meaningful and well thought out opinions concerning the creation of these three variety coins produced all in 2004 at the Denver Mint. One coin..maybe. Two coins...very doubtful. Three coins... no way !!!!

Fraz

Does any mint employee possess the skills to do tiny work like that?
Is that something that one could pull off on the sly?
Could one do it quickly?
A master engraver compromises himself? (Doesn’t one have to be a master to cut fed metal?
He does it twice? Or, they do it twice?
Them were Peter Graves and Martin Landau!

If my siblings and cousins had been working there I would believe it.

OAKSTAR

@cladking said:
The press that made these coins was shut off when the operator went to lunch after having noticed the problem. The press was turned back on before he returned and the coins sent on their way. My understanding is that this is most unusual for a press to be operated without an operator.

I believe at least two and perhaps more employees were involved with the intentional production of these coins. This would make them "unofficial" type coins.

The mint never announced any reprimands or firings over the situation.

So now the United States Mint shuts down operations because of lunch breaks?? I know nothing about mint operations or production but man, I find that hard to believe. I could certainly be wrong.

This whole scenario sounds like some type of old folk law.

BTW @HIGHLOWLEAVES - Do you have a link to that Inspector Generals report?

lilolme

I was looking at some TV. Interesting how the look can change from one to another due to light, photo and maybe strike. A couple of the low leaf and high leaf.

OAKSTAR

@Fraz said:
Does any mint employee possess the skills to do tiny work like that?
Is that something that one could pull off on the sly?
Could one do it quickly?
A master engraver compromises himself? (Doesn’t one have to be a master to cut fed metal?
He does it twice? Or, they do it twice?

I would say absolutely yes to all of the above! However, not just any mint employee, a skilled engraver with the right tools.

davewesen

@OAKSTAR said:

@Fraz said:
Does any mint employee possess the skills to do tiny work like that?
Is that something that one could pull off on the sly?
Could one do it quickly?
A master engraver compromises himself? (Doesn’t one have to be a master to cut fed metal?
He does it twice? Or, they do it twice?

I would say absolutely yes to all of the above! However, not just any mint employee, a skilled engraver with the right tools.

Dcarr has shown that all that is need is a punch and a hammer - no need for skilled engraver

OAKSTAR

@davewesen said:

@OAKSTAR said:

@Fraz said:
Does any mint employee possess the skills to do tiny work like that?
Is that something that one could pull off on the sly?
Could one do it quickly?
A master engraver compromises himself? (Doesn’t one have to be a master to cut fed metal?
He does it twice? Or, they do it twice?

I would say absolutely yes to all of the above! However, not just any mint employee, a skilled engraver with the right tools.

Dcarr has shown that all that is need is a punch and a hammer - no need for skilled engraver

Hmmmm, I don't know. Maybe in the hands of Dan. I believe he's a trained artist and multi skilled engineer.

Fraz

@davewesen said:
Dcarr has shown that all that is need is a punch and a hammer.

The end of a bolt tilted slightly…

Now, my cousins would use a punch and hammer.

IkesT

@dcarr said:

@BAJJERFAN said:

@Typekat said:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury:

I will accept without quibble the admission of photographic evidence (in this cold case) referred to in My Esteemed Colleague’s first sentence. However, the rest of his opening remarks at first slander an unnamed Mint engraver, then dispute the prima facie evidence of the artistic embellishments themselves, and go on to impute intentional malicious behavior, manipulations, and secret sanctions by Mint officers also unnamed.

Further, I believe that there was an extensive and inconclusive Mint investigation in 2005. Remember, two taps of steel tool upon the steel dies in question is all it took to create these varieties. I would venture to say that the artist/perpetrator of this deed is probably not present in this courtroom.

I move to dismiss this stale case of ‘crime without a victim,’ unless My Esteemed Colleague intends to present new concrete evidence here today. Thank you.

—————

IMHO, the additional leaves of these two varieties are not die clashes, nor is there any explanation for the presence of the additional leaves via something that might have occurred during production of the coins on the ‘factory floor’, so to speak.

Others may remember this variety being discussed extensively on this forum back then, and could share a link, or chime in.

Truth is, making those extra marks on the dies could have been done by one production room employee (not an Engraver, but a worker with access and opportunity to ‘make his mark’). With the right tool, it might have taken less than a minute.

I was in Phoenix at the time they were released, and the bag of Wi-D quarters that we obtained for our shop’s retail stock was roughly a 15% mixture of High and Low Leaf varieties.

The other locations that they were distributed in that I am aware of are Tucson and San Antonio TX. The PL examples that NGC graded (the earliest strikes) were primarily, if not entirely, from the San Antonio area.

I don't believe that asking if it COULD have been done by a mint engraver constitutes slander as he didn't definitively say that they did it.

OTOH anyone with functional vision can see that the placement of the leaf in both varieties is too perfect to have been coincidence.

.

Perfectly-placed accidents happen all the time. Die gouges that are not "perfectly placed" are easier to spot and are generally culled from the working die inventory. Only die gouges such as this that are "perfectly placed" and naturally camouflaged will get past the inspectors.

Its like this:
People often shoot guns into the air. But you only hear about it on the very rare occasion when a bullet comes down and hits someone. Was such a shot too "perfectly placed" to be a coincidence ?

.

Well put! Think about all of the damaged dies that are caught and removed because the damage is obvious (e.g., out in the open fields with nothing around it). The ones that aren't caught are likely the ones where the damage either looks like it is part of the design (like the high leaf/low leaf quarters) or is well-hidden within the design (like the gouged 2004-D dime).

BAJJERFAN

@OAKSTAR said:

@Fraz said:
Does any mint employee possess the skills to do tiny work like that?
Is that something that one could pull off on the sly?
Could one do it quickly?
A master engraver compromises himself? (Doesn’t one have to be a master to cut fed metal?
He does it twice? Or, they do it twice?

I would say absolutely yes to all of the above! However, not just any mint employee, a skilled engraver with the right tools.

Hard to believe that the right kind of bolts just happened to be lying around and came into contact with the right die and with just the right amount of force to give the perfect impression [not once, but twice]. It may well be that a bolt end was responsible for the impression, but I'd wager money that it wasn't by accident. Also I expect that they had to change dies too; hey Dan, I need a new die as this one is messed up.

Fraz

Bolts don’t lie around. They vibrate loose. Jacklegs strip threads. Machinists tap new threads.

IkesT

To look at it another way, here are a couple of coins from my collection (also 2004-D Wisconsin quarters) of a variety that I call the "Telekenetic Cow". This variety has an odd, raised die defect that makes it look like the cow is shooting a projectile at the corn with its mind, just by looking at it.

Would anyone ever think that this was made on purpose? I am doubtful that they would, because it doesn't look like it's supposed to be part of a design. But again, that's presumably just due to random chance.

Fraz

Let’s claim the name now. The projectile is a goober pea.