Proof Washington Quarter Collectors: Help please

MoneyLA

Hi. In the current listing of Heritage auctions, there is a pr67 1936 quarter. Take a look at the reverse scan -- a large blow up. Look in particular at the tail feathers which are almost non existant. I looked at other 1936 proofs. Is this indeed typical for the year -- a lack of strong tail feathers? help please. thanks, and cheers alan mendelson

link to Heritage auction photos

IrishMike

Alan, I have never seen that on the a 36 before or for that matter any of the 36-42 proofs. I wonder if that is poor imaging. Here is a picture of my 36, proof 65.

MoneyLA

Thanks for that scan. I just saw another high grade 1936 proof -- also NGC -- and it also has very WEAK tail feathers. Hmmm.... now Im really curious if the dies were retooled at some point or if the "strike" was adjusted that year? cheers alan mendelson

glassman

Once upon a time, I had a '36 Washington in pr67, the ones I've seen seem to be notoriously soft of strike. Mine was and frankly I wondered how it could grade out, being that soft... proof 67 and hardly any chest feathers, go figure.

The one you are looking at seems like it has had it's tail feathers shot off. Could be a lousy image, a not uncommon issue with Heritage auctions. I won't bid on any lots I can't see in person, or I have someone I trust take a look at any lots I have an interest in.

Gilbert

First year of issue for proof Washington quarters; maybe you've found one they hadn't got quite right.

MoneyLA

If the heritage scan is accurate, then I have now seen two 1936 proofs with weak tail feathers -- the second one is the ngc coin I saw in person. I have sold my registry set which included a pcgs pr66 for 1936 as well as the other early proofs in high grades so I dont have coins to compare. so again, my question is -- is this a variety, a result of soft strike, or?? cheers, alan mendelson

MoneyLA

Here is another heritage scan for another proof 1936 up for auction. Again, the tail feathers are almost non existant. Ive put in a call to Heritage to discuss this and am waiting for a call.

Anyone else who has a proof 1936 washington -- please tell what your tail feathers look like?? thanks and cheers, alan mendelson

heritage link

MoneyLA

I just spoke with a cataloguer from Heritage who told me that with the 1936 proofs the dies were polished and removed the detail. This is why some 36 proofs show different stages of "blurriness," and why the NGC pr67 in this particular auction has such weak tail feathers.

This is all new to me, and sounds plausible. As I noted earlier, Ive also seen another NGC high grade proof of 1936 that also has weak tail feathers. The cataloguer says the grade should reflect the strike of the dies used plus the usual preservation of the coin. Any other thoughts as all this is new to me?

thanks and cheers, alan mendelson

jonesy

WOW.What tail feathers?
Glenn

Gilbert

just spoke with a cataloguer from Heritage who told me that with the 1936 proofs the dies were polished and removed the detail. This is why some 36 proofs show different stages of "blurriness," and why the NGC pr67 in this particular auction has such weak tail feathers.

Doesn't seem plausible to me. Unless my research is off, this would be the first use of the "B" reverse (proof only) and is the mintage something just over 3000. What sounds more plausible is that they choked on a few strikes before that got the optimum result.

MoneyLA

Gilbert: Heritage says the strikes were good, the dies were "bad" or in this case with details that were polished-away. Had they been bad strikes then the coins would not have recieved high grades. Please see the two scans that I linked to -- one was PCGS and another NGC and both showing weak tail feathers. In addition, I have seen in person another high grade NGC slabbed proof with very faint tail feathers.

Anyone else out there-- please look at your 36 proofs. cheers, alan mendelson

MoneyLA

any additional info? I wonder if there is a grading book that has tackled this subject? many thanks, cheers, alan mendelson

quattrocoins

Alan,

I went and dug out some coins for picture takin' this weekend and grabbed mine. It also has weakly struck tail feathers. In comparing it to a '37 & '38, the letters "E PLURIBUS UNUM" are also weakly struck. In reference to the type "B" reverse, it doesn't seem to be one. The spacing between the "E" & "S" in states is too narrow, and the leaf between the left fork is not as long and sharp as on the others. There are other differences also. The peripheral lettering seems to be different, and none of the bottom leaves touch the lettering on the '36. I will try to post a pic. later.

Is the high grade NGC coin, that you refer to seeing, your new acquisition?
This could be interesting if there are two different types. I definitely feel that the reverse is different from the following years.

Don

MoneyLA

Don I was counting on you to come up with helpful info. Thank you!! I don't know if we are dealing with a "type B" reverse or as the Heritage folks opined that we are dealing with dies that had their details polished away? Anyone else with an idea? cheers, alan mendelson

quattrocoins

One quick note, Alan.
I don't see how die polishing could narrow the gap between the "E" and "S". I would think that it could only widen it. IMHO it has to be a different die than the following years.

Don

(typos)

DMWJR

Both the coin IrishMike posted and the Heritage coin linked have the Type A reverse. When I get home from work, I'm going to look at a couple I have at home and see if they have the A or B reverse. If my memory serves correct, the 1936 Proof was supposed to be a B reverse, although I can't say that I have paid particular interest to the reverse of the proofs for this year or not.

DMWJR

I just checked the historical sales on Teletrade, and there are 8 1936 proofs that have sold in the last year. All of them have the Type A reverse, just like the two mentioned in this thread. Some have "non-existant" tail feathers like this NGC PR63 coin sold on Teletrade:

MoneyLA

Doug, thanks for this insight. If you dont mind, can you describe the differences between the type A and B reverses, and the reverse without strong tail feathers -- is that type A or B ?? Or both?? thanks, Alan

Gilbert

Well, if you care to hear my explanation (I have done a little research) the type A reverse is the reverse on everything prior to 1936. When they mint decided to begin restriking proofs, the "B" reverse was SUPPOSED to be employed (J Feigenbaum). I guess I'll have to try and dig up the possible numbers of type A on proofs.

As for type A reverse: relief is low, ES almost touch, and adjacent leaf extends only to top arrow point. (business strikes up to '56, then both rev occur on business strikes)

The type B reverse: relief is higher, E S are apart, and leaf extends above top arrow point (supposedly proofs had this rev exclusively)

Type C (introduction of clad coinage although there is a '64-D struck with it and possibly a '64 from Phila) looks similar to A but has two leaves touching the tops of AR, and the leaves are elongated.

For the early years (thru '36) most emphasis was placed on the obverse motto (weak, medium, heavy) and doubled dies. I guess not much notice was given to the possibility of A rev on proofs. I suspect that either they were discovered after Breens was published, and may be in James Wiles Vol 1, which I don't currently have. OR, you guys may have unique coins. I can't find any other documentation on this; you may want to pursue actual attribution.

MoneyLA

Gilbert, many many thanks. Now I have SOME understanding. Is it your feeling that the reverses with the weak tail feathers is the "minority" example? (sorry to be redundant, but sometimes I have to be hit over the head a few times to get it to sink in).

Don, indeed, the NGC coin I saw in person with the faint tail feathers is the pr66 with the rainbow coloring that I recently purchased.

cheers, and many thanks, alan mendelson

DMWJR

Alan, if you look at the pictures on Heritage and Teletrade, you will find more than a dozen 1936 proofs with the Type A reverse. You will not find a single one with a Type B reverse.

Gilbert has a good explanation of the reverses, although there is nothing like looking at them in person. The three pick up points in order are:

1. The space between the ES of STATES;
2. The leaf to the left of the arrows; and
3. The two leaves that reach down near the first L and the A of DOLLAR.

Figenbaum's book says that 1936 proofs had the Type B, BUUUTTTTTTT . . . . . you can look at all of the ones I pointed out and see that they are all Type A reverses. This is a very interesting point, and I'm glad you spotted it.

Does anyone actually have a 1936 proof with a Type B reverse????

I'll see if I can find a couple of pictures to put up.

MoneyLA

Doug thanks.

Take a look at the scan of the 1936 that Mike put up, higher up in this thread. Is this the B you are looking for?

To be honest, Im embarassed that I didn't know about this... even after collecting proof washingtons for so long and even once having the #1 set... but it's nice to learn something new. cheers, alan mendelson

DMWJR

Here you go. Tell me if you like the pictures or not.

TYPE A:






TYPE B:

MoneyLA

Okay, now I got it. but what about the weak tailfeathers? are they type a or b? alan

DMWJR

Alan, forget about the tailfeathers. There are over a dozen 1936 proof quarters on Teletrade and Heritage. They are all TYPE A reverses, and they have very little detail on the tailfeathers, as well as other areas of the reverse. It's just the way the master hub was designed and made. It doesn't have anything to do with polishing or strike.

MoneyLA

Doug thanks for your last comment. Actually I am very RELEIVED to know that the lack of tail feathers is not a factor of polishing or strike. Because I have a NGC-slabbed high grade 36 proof that Im about to submit to PCGS for crossing. Here we go... thanks again, cheers, alan mendelson

BillJones

I’m not an expert on 1936 Proof Washington quarters, but I do know that die polishing played a very important role in the sharpness of the Proof coins during the 1936-42 era. The first Proof 1936 coins had a satiny, matte finish that many collectors did not like. That prompted the mint to polish the dies to excess in order to maximize the luster of the Proof surfaces. The results of this are evident given the very bright surfaces that are noted on many of 1936-42 Proof coins.

This die polishing also caused some pieces to lose sharpness. For example one variety of Walking Liberty half dollar is missing the designer’s initials. I’ve owned a 1942 Proof cent that had Lincoln’s bow tie suspended in mid air, and some 1942 Proof half dollars are weak in the hand area. Die polishing may have something to do with the weakness of the tail feathers on the 1936 Proof quarter.

DMWJR

Thanks Bill, I certainly respect your position, and it could be true. However, I haven't seen any evidence of die polishing on reverses, and I can't seem to find a 36 proof with any more detail on the TF's, or one with a Type B reverse. It just leads me to believe that the proofing room just cleaned up a few business Type A reverses and used them in that first year. Then someone said "Oh crap!" (or words to that effect) and they redesigned the TYPE B reverse for the proofs which would show more detail.

I think we can agree that we are all speculating at this point.

Gilbert

After a little more research, I will modify my statement.

J Feigenbaum's book, The Complete Guide to Washington Quarters, states that reverse hub B was used on all proofs from 1936-1972, and inconsistently on business strikes from 1956 through 1972, BUT, goes on to say in the synopsis of 1937 coinage, that:

Breen reports that reverse hub B was used for the first time to strike the proof issues.

He does not further dispute that statement, so based on what you guys are reporting (finding all your '36 proofs with characteristics of reverse A) I would infer that either, the hub was designed in '36 and not used until '37, there may be a small portion of '36 strikes with the B reverse, or the verey first statement (1936-1972) is a typo.

In any event, I would be on the lookout for the unique '36 proof with a B reverse.

Hope that provides a little more clarification.

DMWJR

If anyone finds a 36 with a Type B reverse, send it to me first!!!

I sent John Fiegenbaum an e-mail. I'll report back when he responds.

IrishMike

There is no question that my 36 is a type A reverse and that the 37-42 issues are type B in my set. However I don't think that had to do with the sharpness of the tail feathers. All mine seem to be about the same strike (except the 1941), the 36 is a little weaker in the tail feathers but the 41 has virtually the same strike as the one in Alan's photo of the 36 for sale at Heritage. See picture.

MoneyLA

All this information is excellent and helpful. thanks.

Now, just one final question (for now):

Is it okay for a 1936 proof washington with WEAK tail feathers to still be eligible for a high grade such as a pr66 or pr67 ?? In other words, if all of the other quality points are there, do weak tail feathers still allow for a high grade? or must there be strong tail feathers to quality for a high grade such as pr66 or pr67??

cheers, alan mendelson