New Member with a Question?
DocMortar
Posts: 218
Greetings,
I have been reading this forum for the last month or so and I wanted to introduce myself. Reading the messages here is alot of fun. I have just started collecting and I have many questions. I find this forum to be most interesting and enlightening. I guess I am a victim of the state quarter craze. I really like the coins and I am enjoying collecting them. Maybe I will advance to other things when I gain more knowledge. My question involves a circulated New Hampshire Quarter I have that does not have a mint mark. The last t in trust is very flat. What would this indicate? How can I tell if this is due to a filled die or some other type error? Thanks for your answers.
I have been reading this forum for the last month or so and I wanted to introduce myself. Reading the messages here is alot of fun. I have just started collecting and I have many questions. I find this forum to be most interesting and enlightening. I guess I am a victim of the state quarter craze. I really like the coins and I am enjoying collecting them. Maybe I will advance to other things when I gain more knowledge. My question involves a circulated New Hampshire Quarter I have that does not have a mint mark. The last t in trust is very flat. What would this indicate? How can I tell if this is due to a filled die or some other type error? Thanks for your answers.
0
Comments
Neil
I will definitely hang on to it. How would you know that it is a collectible variety?
Keep it, it's cool
states quarters. These coins command significant premiums with errors or important
varieties. Your coin sounds like a filled die error which can be extremely common and
is unlikely to attract much interest even on a states coin. They can be fun to collect
and sometimes a filled die error does catch on and become valuable. If the mint mark
is completely gone there is a greater chance of collector interest. There is a 1989
quarter with a missing mint mark due to a filled die that still commands a premium.
If the tops of the design features are present then you know that the press cycled
properly so that it is not a die trial strike. The only other common reason for missing
design elements is die polishing. This can be difficult to differentiate from filled dies.
Look for evidence that the field has been lowered in the area. This is less common on
moderns.
You're not a tuck pointer are you?
http://www.coinfacts.com/
http://www.pcgs.com/coinguidetext/display_chapter.chtml?chapter=tableofcontents
Registry 1909-1958 Proof Lincolns
A "variety", specifically, is a slight, usually intentional - often noticed by collectors - change in the design of a particular denomination mid-stream in the production of dies. "Varieties", as they are technically defined, can come in the form of large letters, small letters...large date, small date...type 1, type 2, type 3, etc....reverse of (insert year) where the reverse from one year to another is normally different, but wasn't neccesarily supposed to be paired with the "other" year's obverse. You get the drift...
With that being said, there are no known or reported "varieties" in the statehood quarter series, meaning all known dies for each of the designs minted to date have the exact same design on them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to a statehood quarter missing a mint mark. Only two things can cause a missing mint mark - failure on the mint's part to punch a mint mark into a die (as was the case with a quarter die in the 1980s), or a grease filled die in the vicinity of the mint mark.
1. Statehood quarters came after the era of hand punching mint marks into dies, so the first possibility is out. It is not a "missing" mint mark because all mint marks were incorporated into the master die, which in turn through steps in transfer, created all of the working dies for the design. If the mint mark were never placed on a statehood quarter die, it in turn would never have been placed on the master die hence creating many working dies without mint marks...they would be common. Since they aren't, I doubt this is the case.
2. The only remaining possibility through logical deduction remains that DocMortar's coin is the result of grease filled dies, which correctly stated by others earlier in this thread, is a common and minor error usually commanding very little if any premium value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However.....the market has done some really strange things with regard to the statehood quarters. Typically low value, rather common errors have exceeded the $100 mark, other errors that had a history of selling for $50 or less suddenly jumped to $500 or more, and history repeats itself. There's just some chance that because this quarter is supposed to have a mint mark, but by obvious and common reasons doesn't, there could be a market for it in an area that makes little logical sense anyway - the statehood quarter error market. I would suggest contacting one of the following people for a truly expert opinion...
Mike Byers
Rich Schemmer
Fred Weinberg
The Lincoln cent store:
http://www.lincolncent.com
My numismatic art work:
http://www.cdaughtrey.com
USAF veteran, 1986-1996 :: support our troops - the American way.
to the extensive number of then being reported in the statehood quarter series they
have taken on more aspects of being varieties than errors. They already are repeatable
which is one of the primary definitions of being a variety.
"as they are technically defined, can come in the form of large letters, small letters...large date, small date...type 1, type 2, type 3, etc"
Clarification, a type and variety are two different animals. A variety is as you said "a slight, usually intentional - often noticed by collectors - change in the design of a particular denomination mid-stream in the production of dies". A noticable yet unintentional shift in the date would create a new variety (two varieties of 1845-D Half Eagle).
A type is a more significant always intentional change in a design. Examples would be the three types of Liberty Double Eagles. Breen defines it as a "major subdivision of a design: 1883 nickels without and with CENTS..."
Rotated dies are typically a problem either with the dies having been improperly fitted into the press or the grooves on the edges of the dies wearing off allowing the die to rotate freely in the press. Either way, it would be considered a striking error (press malfunction) according to the definition of the three categories of errors (the P,D,S system) as set forth by Alan Herbert over 30 years ago - it has nothing to do with changes in the design.
Because something becomes more common or more collected over time doesn't change what it is. Lack of consistency in terminology, especially in printed guides, is what causes particular errors, varieties, die varieties to change definition.
The Lincoln cent store:
http://www.lincolncent.com
My numismatic art work:
http://www.cdaughtrey.com
USAF veteran, 1986-1996 :: support our troops - the American way.
State Quarters have brought a whole new group of collectors--it's good for the hobby.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
As for adding "cents" to the nickels in 1883, the arrows and rays changes of the seated coinage, etc...those are definately design type changes...not varieties.
The Lincoln cent store:
http://www.lincolncent.com
My numismatic art work:
http://www.cdaughtrey.com
USAF veteran, 1986-1996 :: support our troops - the American way.
down as many definitions as possible, but there is no recognized standard on these terms so I
use a best fit. Mr. Herbert may have come up with an adequate framework for classifying much
of knowledge in these areas, but has excessive number of errors to be considered a standard.
This really is a grey area though most would consider them errors.
Are die cracks and cuds really repeatable since the die always will disintegrate so quickly?
The Lincoln cent store:
http://www.lincolncent.com
My numismatic art work:
http://www.cdaughtrey.com
USAF veteran, 1986-1996 :: support our troops - the American way.
The Ludlow Brilliant Collection (1938-64)
<< <i>there is no recognized standard on these terms >>
That's odd, I thought Alan Herbert, Arnold Margolis, the ANA, NCADD, and CONECA (among others) all agreeing on the concrete definitions of these terms was enough. Actually what I don't understand is why other people have to muddy the waters by acting like it's all a matter of "semantics". If people would simply spread the word on what the correct terms are and where they should be used, the whole air of confusion would dissolve. Thing is, it's not rocket science - the terms are pretty clear, cut, and dry.
If something does not involve changing the design on a coin it's not a variety. Pretty simple.
The Lincoln cent store:
http://www.lincolncent.com
My numismatic art work:
http://www.cdaughtrey.com
USAF veteran, 1986-1996 :: support our troops - the American way.