Here is the story which will appear in our IPO offering in Coin World: It is the most dramatic and unusual die variety to come out of the Mint in 50 years. Two different dies with extra design elements: extra leaves on the left side of the corn husk on a select few of the 2004 Denver Mint Wisconsin Quarters. They were both discovered at the same time and apparently were struck at the same time. Bob Ford, a Tucson, AZ collector who, for the past 15 years has made a hobby of searching through coins in circulation for varieties and errors found the first ones on December 11, 2004. Bob brought the pieces he found To Rob Weiss at Old Pueblo Coin in Tucson. After confirming the importance of these varieties Rob reported the coin to Coin World - it was reported in the January 24th issue, and the local press - it was a front-page feature in the Arizona Daily Star on January 11th. Immediately all of Tucson was on a scavenger hunt for these coins.
Before a market price could be established, Tucson dealers, Rob at Old Pueblo and Brett Sadovnick at Tucson Coin and Autograph needed to know how many of the coins were made, how widespread the distribution was and how “neat” the variety actually is. A few sets were sold to Bret Palser of Eagle Eye Rare Coins who took them to the F.U.N show to determine the cause and “neatness” of the variety. At the show Rick Snow of Eagle Eye, and all the top numismatists at the show examined the coins. Needless to say, everyone was excited with these dramatic “naked-eye” varieties. As the first and only State-Quarter variety, they have added collector appeal. Bret and Rick sold a few sets at the show and then abruptly stopped all sales.
The variety was initially reported as a die gouge, but the majority consensus from the FUN show was that it is probably an added design element. It is certainly puzzling, given the limited numbers found exactly if this was intentional or some extraordinary coincidence. At the FUN Show, noted author, Q. David Bowers noticed that these varieties have other subtle design differences. These varieties easily rank in “neatness” with the 1937-D 3-Legged Buffalo, or 1922 No D Lincoln Cent.
As it turns out the distribution of these coins is extremely local and the quantity found is extremely small. They turned up only in Tucson and a few surrounding communities. One of the bank tellers who found 200 sets says he found them only in the November 29th delivery from the Mint. None were found in solid rolls – all were mixed in with regular no-leaf coins. Presently no more than 1000 sets have been retrieved from the area banks, and all of the banks have been searched thoroughly. Any additional specimens will likely show light circulation wear. With 3000 pieces of the 1955 Doubled die cents certified by NGC and PCGS combined, the comparative rarity of known bank-fresh examples is very high.
This offering by Old Pueblo, Tucson Coin and Autograph and Eagle Eye Rare Coins is by far the most important numismatic event to grace Tucson’s coin collecting community. We feel that the national collectors market, after actually seeing these coin for themselves will agree that these two varieties are the most exciting variety to come out of the Mint in our generation.
The pricing on the certified examples is based on a much higher population than is currently known. We feel the prices asked here are fair for a population 10 times of what is currently known. Quantities are very limited and at press time we do not have certified population numbers. Both NGC and PCGS are giving these separate listings in their population reports. Ken Bressett, editor of the Whitman’s “Red Book” also saw the coin and indicated positively that once pricing was established it would certainly be given a listing in their book. Every State-Quarter collector will need these coins. Please call any of the dealers listed below quickly to reserve your coins.
Of course this an excerpt from the ad, I'm not selling them here.
It sounds like those promoting this coin are looking for a quick profit before reality sinks in. We don't really know how many were struck. We don't really know it is a "variety", that is a modification present at installation. We really don't know if it is an intentional modification. There's a lot of speculation here with little hard evidence that these "extra leaves" are anything other than die gouges. I will reserve judgement until I see some published data that confirms the exotic scenarios favored by those selling these coins.
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
And don't forget, neat as the 37-D three leg and 22 Plain must be worth a fortune I just don't see it being the same, maybe it's me but I just don't see the big deal.
The statement these are as neat as the 37-d 3-legger and 22 N D does not imply the same value. Take away the high values and an added design element is certianly more of a "wow" than an over-polished die.
Hey errormaven, I wish you would reserve your comments until you've at least seen one. I guess Dave Bowers does not know enough to satisfy you. Geez. You can post whatever you like, but I think you look like a fool to the lurkers out there. All "poo-poo" and no knowledge at all.
The dealers here in Tucson know how many are out there, and how many are likely to show up. We said so in the statement. We know the actual day these were shipped from the Mint and none are found in boxes before nor after.
"The statement these are as neat as the 37-d 3-legger and 22 N D does not imply the same value. Take away the high values and an added design element is certianly more of a "wow" than an over-polished die. "
It has yet to be established that this is an "added design element".
"Hey errormaven, I wish you would reserve your comments until you've at least seen one. I guess Dave Bowers does not know enough to satisfy you. Geez. You can post whatever you like, but I think you look like a fool to the lurkers out there. All "poo-poo" and no knowledge at all."
I haven't stated a position. I've simply expressed an attitude of suspended judgement until such time as convincing evidence is presented to support one working hypothesis over another. It is you who seem to be jumping to conclusions. All I've seen are "it looks like" and "it seems like" sorts of comments, which constitute no evidence at all. Any theory must be based in clear physical evidence and a logical argument, not hunches and impressions. Falling back on the expertise and opinions of experts is also useless. Unless those experts can present a convincing argument grounded in hard physical evidence, such pronouncements aren't worth any more than those of any member of this message board. Unsupported opinions, no matter what their source, amount to nothing more than ex-cathedra arguments -- arguments from authority. And ex-cathedra arguments are sterile and useless.
"The dealers here in Tucson know how many are out there, and how many are likely to show up. We said so in the statement. We know the actual day these were shipped from the Mint and none are found in boxes before nor after."
This is not surprising. Given a striking rate of 800 coins per minute on a Schuler press, no die can be expected to last much more than a day. That these coins were shipped on a single day is not surprising in the least. Quite a few coins can be produced in a single day, and we don't know how many escaped into circulation.
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
errormaven, It seems to me that all you are looking for is someone to say what I've said here, but in print. Just wait.
As an error guy, you should have a little more inqusitive attitute rather than a "shoot it and if it stays dead, I must be right" type of mentality. Have you seen this variety? I bet not. I have had all the people - ANACS, ICG, PCGS, NGC, Bowers, Bresset...anyone who knows anything about varities look at them, and they all felt it was real COOL! As for myself, usually if it's not a FE or Indian cent, I could care less. But this is a real cool variety. I recognized it right away, before owning a single one. I then invested tons of my own money to get into it. I did not find a single one at face value! I consider myself a very good judge of varieties and evaluating them.
<< <i>Yeah, Clackamas......he bought "a roll"....you should PM him and ask if he has received them yet >>
Nope not yet, paid dearly for them, really gambling that there are more than two in the roll. I think I will get a set of three as well just in case but I may wait until I get them in hand. If Rick Snow says they are a variety it is good enough for me. An added design element would be titanic, really unprecedented in the modern world. Maybe the Quarters will get a snow number like indian cents? I collect varieties, doubled dies mostly but this kind of thing is way cool IMO.
errormaven - No offense but you should do your homework about some of the people who post on these boards. I believe Rick knows a few things about varieties, so much so that the "Snow" numbers for Indian cents are the gold standard and recognized by the entire numismastic community. His posts that this is a major variety holds as much weight as if Bill Fivaz or JT Stanon were to post about them (authors of the Cherry pickers guide). Cheers - Brian
Did Bowers think both were varieties?? The low leaf looks most compelling.
"My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko, Big Moose.
"Errormaven, It seems to me that all you are looking for is someone to say what I've said here, but in print. Just wait."
No, actually. I'm waiting for much more -- actual evidence. So far none has been presented, only unsupported assertions and conjectures.
"As an error guy, you should have a little more inqusitive attitute rather than a "shoot it and if it stays dead, I must be right" type of mentality."
I have no idea what you're talking about. I am as curious about the features on these Wisconsin quarters as you are. I simply stated that I don't know what they are. And when you don't know what you're dealing with, I feel it is always best to tentatively go with the least exotic scenario, i.e, a die gouge.
It is up to those who claim a more exotic source for these defects to come up with compelling evidence for those claims. There's an old saying in science and philosophy that "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence". Right now the evidence presented in support of the extraordinary claim that these are intentional design modifications is nil.
"Have you seen this variety? I bet not."
Only pictures so far. I would therefore think that those who HAVE scrutinzed these coins up close would have come up with more than the existing body of hunches and intuitions to support the claim of an intentional design modification. It is not incumbent on me to explain my skepticism. Skepticism should always be one's first response when confronted by exotic claims. It is incumbent on those who make exotic claims to prove them.
"I have had all the people - ANACS, ICG, PCGS, NGC, Bowers, Bresset...anyone who knows anything about varities look at them, and they all felt it was real COOL!"
"Cool" is not a diagnosis. It is an emotional reaction. I find these quarters interesting, too.
"As for myself, usually if it's not a FE or Indian cent, I could care less. But this is a real cool variety. I recognized it right away, before owning a single one. I then invested tons of my own money to get into it. I did not find a single one at face value! I consider myself a very good judge of varieties and evaluating them."
I wish you the best of luck with your investment. Personally, I wouldn't consider investing in a die variety or die error whose nature and origin is obscure and that may never be fully understood.
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
"Errormaven - No offense but you should do your homework about some of the people who post on these boards. I believe Rick knows a few things about varieties, so much so that the "Snow" numbers for Indian cents are the gold standard and recognized by the entire numismastic community. His posts that this is a major variety holds as much weight as if Bill Fivaz or JT Stanon were to post about them (authors of the Cherry pickers guide). Cheers - Brian"
No offense taken, Brian. I certainly know these gentlemen or know of them. But as I said earlier, relying on authority as a substitute for evidence is as invalid here as it is in a courtroom. An expert witness in a trial still has to present convincing evidence to back up his opinion. Showing up on the witness stand and saying "it is what I say it is and that settles it" will not convince any jury. Reputation and experience count for nothing when you're presenting a case. The only thing that ever matters is the quality of your evidence and the logical consistency of your presentation.
I've got a bit of a reputation myself, but I would never dream of invoking my expertise, long record of publication, and numerous discoveries to back up any particular opinion. Evidence and a logically consistent argument are the only equipment I bring to a debate.
-- Mike Diamond
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
I'd like to get a couple of each as well, but it depends on the price. Right now, I don't think anyone can definitively say whether it was only 1 die for each or what and how many are out there. I went through a couple of rolls last night, no luck.
Brian, you got the roll which supposedly shows 1 on each end. Yet, Rick is saying that there are no complete rolls of them "naturally". For your sake, I hope you get a full roll. I am tempted to go back to the bank and get the last 8 rolls they have and search them.....
>>>Yet, Rick is saying that there are no complete rolls of them "naturally".
I know it has me confused. If they went to banks they had to come in rolls so how could none of them show up in rolls. It is possible I am getting snookered by some put together roll but since I used a CC I can always charge it back so I am not too worried. I would like to get some clarification but I am fairly sure they HAD to come in rolls from the banks.
I am thinking, from what I have seen that this is a genuine mint design error, and if it is confirmed you are not going to be able to touch one of these for what you can buy them for now. Especially since there seems to be just a small hoard that got loose. I could be wrong but if not????
<< <i> errormaven - No offense but you should do your homework about some of the people who post on these boards. I believe Rick knows a few things about varieties, so much so that the "Snow" numbers for Indian cents are the gold standard and recognized by the entire numismastic community. His posts that this is a major variety holds as much weight as if Bill Fivaz or JT Stanon were to post about them (authors of the Cherry pickers guide). Cheers - Brian >>
Mike doesn't need me to defend him, but pick up any copy of ErrorScope from the last three years and you'll find he knows a thing or two about error coins.
I respect Rick's opinion as much as anyone's in the hobby, but I can't get past the fact that he has a vested financial interest in these coins being recognized as a variety. I would equate this to a stockbroker recommending a certain stock as a strong buy, then mentioning that he happens to personally have several thousand shares available for a nominal fee.
Sean Reynolds
Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
You confused it Brian....Rick is saying no "complete" rolls have been found....ie, no 40 of them in 1 roll (unless put together). Could be that there is just 1 die of each and when they were all mixed together, 40 didn't end up together in 1 roll.
Time will tell.
Like I said, I would like a few and if I had seen them at FUN, I would probably have gotten a couple....but, I was busy being taken aback by the size of the show, meeting forum members, and searching for either a 1955 DDO Lincoln, 1909s-vdb, or 1926-S buffalo to buy (bought none , couldn't find the right look).
Some years ago in Errorscope, Chris Pilliod had an article on a 1910 cent that showed a peculiar die dent with longitudinal ribs in the field on the reverse. He concluded that it was from the die striking a metal shaving.
While it may simply be coincidence, the "down leaf" also has a ribbed appearance. Some commentators have already speculated that the two die imperfections are from the die striking a hard object.
Just throwing out possibilities, here.
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
<< <i>Some years ago in Errorscope, Chris Pilliod had an article on a 1910 cent that showed a peculiar die dent with longitudinal ribs in the field on the reverse. He concluded that it was from the die striking a metal shaving.
While it may simply be coincidence, the "down leaf" also has a ribbed appearance. Some commentators have already speculated that the two die imperfections are from the die striking a hard object.
Just throwing out possibilities, here. >>
Others have speculated about a hubbing accident, with a metal shaving getting caught between the working hub and the working die. Of course, such an accident would have to have occurred on two separate occasions, and in almost the same spot. That a bit of a stretch. But so is an intentional design modification or an accident during preparation of a master die. Perhaps it's a bit of mischief by a die sinker who wanted to acheive a measure of immortality by planting his own mark on two working dies.
Of course, we still have the die gouge scenario. The 1993-P quarter in the Coin World article with the semi-circular die gouge demonstrates that similar types of damage have occurred in the past. Granted, the semi-circular die gouge in that specimen is shallower, but it's just as regular as the "up leaf".
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
Even if the phenomenon is a ho-hum die gouge as far as the technicalities are concerned, it looks neat because of it's appearance and location. To that extent, it's of essential interest, like the 3-legged Buff. The fact that they are showing up only in Tuscon does suggest this is a one-die type of phenomenon.
In any event, I went ahead and got a set, for the neatness factor.
<< <i>What do you think the chances of these quarters being found in bags still available at the Mint? Has anyone bought a bag or two hoping to find these? >>
I bought a bag and nada....zip....nutt-ing......
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>Others have speculated about a hubbing accident, with a metal shaving getting caught between the working hub and the working die. >>
Just casual observation here but I think the key to determining what happened may be in the detail on the underside of the left husk leaf. The photo above shows a distinct difference from the regular die vs the Hi leaf and Low leaf varieties.
An examination of the proof coins also shows a lack of detail in this area and yes I know that proof dies are different than business strike dies but they are pulled from the same master hub.
Edited from hubs to hub..
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
Just casual observation here but I think the key to determining what happened may be in the detail on the underside of the left husk leaf. The photo above shows a distinct difference from the regular die vs the Hi leaf and Low leaf varieties.
An examination of the proof coins also shows a lack of detail in this area and yes I know that proof dies are different than business strike dies but they are pulled from the same master hub.
Edited from hubs to hub.. >>
This would be significant, if larger samples show a consistent difference between the normals and the up leaf and down leaf samples. Those who have purchased bags of the normals should go through them to see if the lack of detail on the underside of the left husk is a consistent feature. If it varies, that would be interesting, too, and well worth analyzing for patterns.
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
How's this for a hare-brained theory: Someone at the die shop has some idle time and decides to make another leaf on the reverse die. The "high leaf" variety is an early failed attempt at cutting a die, the mark is too regular and doesn't line up properly. Finally he gets one to look like part of the design, the "low leaf" variety, and sneaks it back into production.
So what we end up with is a modern twist on the "accented hair" variety - the accented stalk. No names, but I have a list of suspects already....
Sean Reynolds
Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
Just casual observation here but I think the key to determining what happened may be in the detail on the underside of the left husk leaf. The photo above shows a distinct difference from the regular die vs the Hi leaf and Low leaf varieties.
An examination of the proof coins also shows a lack of detail in this area and yes I know that proof dies are different than business strike dies but they are pulled from the same master hub.
Edited from hubs to hub.. >>
This would be significant, if larger samples show a consistent difference between the normals and the up leaf and down leaf samples. Those who have purchased bags of the normals should go through them to see if the lack of detail on the underside of the left husk is a consistent feature. If it varies, that would be interesting, too, and well worth analyzing for patterns. >>
If you go back to the 14th post in this thread, you'll see a photo of a normal WI quarter that shows more detail on the underside of the left husk. So we're dealing with something more complex than a simple bimodal distribution.
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
<< <i>How's this for a hare-brained theory: Someone at the die shop has some idle time and decides to make another leaf on the reverse die. The "high leaf" variety is an early failed attempt at cutting a die, the mark is too regular and doesn't line up properly. Finally he gets one to look like part of the design, the "low leaf" variety, and sneaks it back into production.
So what we end up with is a modern twist on the "accented hair" variety - the accented stalk. No names, but I have a list of suspects already....
Sean Reynolds >>
Sounds quite plausible.
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
<< <i>Others have speculated about a hubbing accident, with a metal shaving getting caught between the working hub and the working die. >>
Just casual observation here but I think the key to determining what happened may be in the detail on the underside of the left husk leaf. The photo above shows a distinct difference from the regular die vs the Hi leaf and Low leaf varieties.
An examination of the proof coins also shows a lack of detail in this area and yes I know that proof dies are different than business strike dies but they are pulled from the same master hub. >>
(Being serious again)
That is an excellent observation. Looking at the pictures again, even the corn kernels look different on the "low leaf" coin versus the normal and 'high leaf" variety. I could believe the "high leaf" is a die gauge like the 2004 dime and a red herring, with the "low leaf" representing a real design variety. I'm very interested to hear Mike's analysis of the coin in hand.
Sean Reynolds
Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
Initially I thought it was a hub-through error. Infact I was in disagreement with a few people. After Dave (Bowers) noticed other design differences, I changed my tune (which any open-minded numismatist should be able to do). Even if it is a hub-through (or Die gouge, for that matter), I figured the placement is an extraordinary coincidence - enough to make it a non-issue as to the cause. This was all before I owned a single example. My stake in this is voluntarty, and does not cloud my judgement on these pieces, in fact I view it as a reinforcment of my judgment on these pieces. People who know me, know that I put numismatic knowledge above personal profit (meaning, I would not ever give false information for personal profit).
Everything I've stated here hase been as factual as is known. If I find anything different, I'll post it here.
Mike, If i send you a few do you have the capability to measure the distance bewteewn the normal leaf tip and the cob. From the pics the lower leaf seems to be a more narrow gap. I will also cout the kernels. Maybe just a photoshop overlay, assuming the perspective is correct would show if the distances are the same?
Yes it's only the D mint quarters. As an aside, I personally have not deemed it useful to go to the banks and search rolls at this point. All the banks in Tucson and surrounding communtities have been searched either by collectors or bank tellers. You have to realize that its like a someone hid winning lottery tickets all over town. I had a bartender pick 10 examples out of 20 rolls. Thats all I bought yesterday, and the amount of people coming in with them is slowed to a trickle. A few are selling them on ebay, but as non-collectors they are only interested in a quick buck, which I gave them. Their supplies will dry up quickly, I suppose.
OK, here are some photoshop overlay comparisons. I do dnot know, however if these scans were taken at the same distance. however it looks as if there are at least two distinct and different designs.
<< <i>Are these "extra leaf" Wisconsin quarters coming out of U.S. Mint bags only? Or are collectors finding them in the U.S. Mint (orange+black) rolls?
Just wondering..........I have 20 P+d sets of U.S. Mint Wisconsin rolls here. Should I break open the rolls and search for the "extra Leaf" quarters?
Please confirm: Is it only on the 2004-d quarters?
Thanks for your advice. Very much appreciated. >>
As far as anyone knows these were ONLY comming from bank rolls, and specifically from rolls from Tuscon,AZ. Save you rolls for now.
<< <i>So do you guys think which is valuable, the up or down leaf ? >>
I would think if these turn out to be legit design errors they both would be. From what I have read the upper is more rare but also less cool. So who knows.
<< <i>Some years ago in Errorscope, Chris Pilliod had an article on a 1910 cent that showed a peculiar die dent with longitudinal ribs in the field on the reverse. He concluded that it was from the die striking a metal shaving.
While it may simply be coincidence, the "down leaf" also has a ribbed appearance. Some commentators have already speculated that the two die imperfections are from the die striking a hard object.
Just throwing out possibilities, here. >>
Others have speculated about a hubbing accident, with a metal shaving getting caught between the working hub and the working die. Of course, such an accident would have to have occurred on two separate occasions, and in almost the same spot. That a bit of a stretch. But so is an intentional design modification or an accident during preparation of a master die. Perhaps it's a bit of mischief by a die sinker who wanted to acheive a measure of immortality by planting his own mark on two working dies.
Of course, we still have the die gouge scenario. The 1993-P quarter in the Coin World article with the semi-circular die gouge demonstrates that similar types of damage have occurred in the past. Granted, the semi-circular die gouge in that specimen is shallower, but it's just as regular as the "up leaf". >>
I don't believe I have ever seen someone quote themselves. And in consecutive posts. That really wasn't necessary. I believe you are holding yourself up to be the arbiter of whether this is die variation or accidental damage. I don't care what you think. You look ridiculous because your premise depends upon, as Rick Snow put it, "extraordinary coincidence." Your refusal to consider an alternative to that is merely a ploy to place yourself in the way of acceptance of that alternative. Sorry, don't care at this point. Based on your comments, reason doesn't come into play with you. Endless debate of the obvious does. Whatever, find a mirror and have a debate. You owe Rick an apology, too, for impuning his integrity. He was open about his financial interest in this from the outset.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
Comments
It is the most dramatic and unusual die variety to come out of the Mint in 50 years. Two different dies with extra design elements: extra leaves on the left side of the corn husk on a select few of the 2004 Denver Mint Wisconsin Quarters. They were both discovered at the same time and apparently were struck at the same time. Bob Ford, a Tucson, AZ collector who, for the past 15 years has made a hobby of searching through coins in circulation for varieties and errors found the first ones on December 11, 2004. Bob brought the pieces he found To Rob Weiss at Old Pueblo Coin in Tucson. After confirming the importance of these varieties Rob reported the coin to Coin World - it was reported in the January 24th issue, and the local press - it was a front-page feature in the Arizona Daily Star on January 11th. Immediately all of Tucson was on a scavenger hunt for these coins.
Before a market price could be established, Tucson dealers, Rob at Old Pueblo and Brett Sadovnick at Tucson Coin and Autograph needed to know how many of the coins were made, how widespread the distribution was and how “neat” the variety actually is. A few sets were sold to Bret Palser of Eagle Eye Rare Coins who took them to the F.U.N show to determine the cause and “neatness” of the variety. At the show Rick Snow of Eagle Eye, and all the top numismatists at the show examined the coins. Needless to say, everyone was excited with these dramatic “naked-eye” varieties. As the first and only State-Quarter variety, they have added collector appeal. Bret and Rick sold a few sets at the show and then abruptly stopped all sales.
The variety was initially reported as a die gouge, but the majority consensus from the FUN show was that it is probably an added design element. It is certainly puzzling, given the limited numbers found exactly if this was intentional or some extraordinary coincidence. At the FUN Show, noted author, Q. David Bowers noticed that these varieties have other subtle design differences. These varieties easily rank in “neatness” with the 1937-D 3-Legged Buffalo, or 1922 No D Lincoln Cent.
As it turns out the distribution of these coins is extremely local and the quantity found is extremely small. They turned up only in Tucson and a few surrounding communities. One of the bank tellers who found 200 sets says he found them only in the November 29th delivery from the Mint. None were found in solid rolls – all were mixed in with regular no-leaf coins. Presently no more than 1000 sets have been retrieved from the area banks, and all of the banks have been searched thoroughly. Any additional specimens will likely show light circulation wear. With 3000 pieces of the 1955 Doubled die cents certified by NGC and PCGS combined, the comparative rarity of known bank-fresh examples is very high.
This offering by Old Pueblo, Tucson Coin and Autograph and Eagle Eye Rare Coins is by far the most important numismatic event to grace Tucson’s coin collecting community. We feel that the national collectors market, after actually seeing these coin for themselves will agree that these two varieties are the most exciting variety to come out of the Mint in our generation.
The pricing on the certified examples is based on a much higher population than is currently known. We feel the prices asked here are fair for a population 10 times of what is currently known. Quantities are very limited and at press time we do not have certified population numbers. Both NGC and PCGS are giving these separate listings in their population reports. Ken Bressett, editor of the Whitman’s “Red Book” also saw the coin and indicated positively that once pricing was established it would certainly be given a listing in their book. Every State-Quarter collector will need these coins. Please call any of the dealers listed below quickly to reserve your coins.
Of course this an excerpt from the ad, I'm not selling them here.
must be worth a fortune
I just don't see it being the same, maybe it's me
but I just don't see the big deal.
Hey errormaven, I wish you would reserve your comments until you've at least seen one. I guess Dave Bowers does not know enough to satisfy you. Geez. You can post whatever you like, but I think you look like a fool to the lurkers out there. All "poo-poo" and no knowledge at all.
The dealers here in Tucson know how many are out there, and how many are likely to show up. We said so in the statement. We know the actual day these were shipped from the Mint and none are found in boxes before nor after.
BTW Rick, I am sure you ripped me on that 1865/4 I sold you.
check your PM.
It has yet to be established that this is an "added design element".
"Hey errormaven, I wish you would reserve your comments until you've at least seen one. I guess Dave Bowers does not know enough to satisfy you. Geez. You can post whatever you like, but I think you look like a fool to the lurkers out there. All "poo-poo" and no knowledge at all."
I haven't stated a position. I've simply expressed an attitude of suspended judgement until such time as convincing evidence is presented to support one working hypothesis over another. It is you who seem to be jumping to conclusions. All I've seen are "it looks like" and "it seems like" sorts of comments, which constitute no evidence at all. Any theory must be based in clear physical evidence and a logical argument, not hunches and impressions. Falling back on the expertise and opinions of experts is also useless. Unless those experts can present a convincing argument grounded in hard physical evidence, such pronouncements aren't worth any more than those of any member of this message board. Unsupported opinions, no matter what their source, amount to nothing more than ex-cathedra arguments -- arguments from authority. And ex-cathedra arguments are sterile and useless.
"The dealers here in Tucson know how many are out there, and how many are likely to show up. We said so in the statement. We know the actual day these were shipped from the Mint and none are found in boxes before nor after."
This is not surprising. Given a striking rate of 800 coins per minute on a Schuler press, no die can be expected to last much more than a day. That these coins were shipped on a single day is not surprising in the least. Quite a few coins can be produced in a single day, and we don't know how many escaped into circulation.
Ya...What he said!!!!
Herb
As an error guy, you should have a little more inqusitive attitute rather than a "shoot it and if it stays dead, I must be right" type of mentality. Have you seen this variety? I bet not. I have had all the people - ANACS, ICG, PCGS, NGC, Bowers, Bresset...anyone who knows anything about varities look at them, and they all felt it was real COOL! As for myself, usually if it's not a FE or Indian cent, I could care less. But this is a real cool variety. I recognized it right away, before owning a single one. I then invested tons of my own money to get into it. I did not find a single one at face value! I consider myself a very good judge of varieties and evaluating them.
<< <i>NGC is certifying them in a special three coin holder on a special request. You can also certify them as singles at NGC and PCGS. >>
Do you have the PCGS coin numbers yet?
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>Yeah, Clackamas......he bought "a roll"....you should PM him and ask if he has received them yet
Nope not yet, paid dearly for them, really gambling that there are more than two in the roll. I think I will get a set of three as well just in case but I may wait until I get them in hand. If Rick Snow says they are a variety it is good enough for me. An added design element would be titanic, really unprecedented in the modern world. Maybe the Quarters will get a snow number like indian cents?
errormaven - No offense but you should do your homework about some of the people who post on these boards. I believe Rick knows a few things about varieties, so much so that the "Snow" numbers for Indian cents are the gold standard and recognized by the entire numismastic community. His posts that this is a major variety holds as much weight as if Bill Fivaz or JT Stanon were to post about them (authors of the Cherry pickers guide). Cheers - Brian
Did Bowers think both were varieties?? The low leaf looks most compelling.
No, actually. I'm waiting for much more -- actual evidence. So far none has been presented, only unsupported assertions and conjectures.
"As an error guy, you should have a little more inqusitive attitute rather than a "shoot it and if it stays dead, I must be right" type of mentality."
I have no idea what you're talking about. I am as curious about the features on these Wisconsin quarters as you are. I simply stated that I don't know what they are. And when you don't know what you're dealing with, I feel it is always best to tentatively go with the least exotic scenario, i.e, a die gouge.
It is up to those who claim a more exotic source for these defects to come up with compelling evidence for those claims. There's an old saying in science and philosophy that "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence". Right now the evidence presented in support of the extraordinary claim that these are intentional design modifications is nil.
"Have you seen this variety? I bet not."
Only pictures so far. I would therefore think that those who HAVE scrutinzed these coins up close would have come up with more than the existing body of hunches and intuitions to support the claim of an intentional design modification. It is not incumbent on me to explain my skepticism. Skepticism should always be one's first response when confronted by exotic claims. It is incumbent on those who make exotic claims to prove them.
"I have had all the people - ANACS, ICG, PCGS, NGC, Bowers, Bresset...anyone who knows anything about varities look at them, and they all felt it was real COOL!"
"Cool" is not a diagnosis. It is an emotional reaction. I find these quarters interesting, too.
"As for myself, usually if it's not a FE or Indian cent, I could care less. But this is a real cool variety. I recognized it right away, before owning a single one. I then invested tons of my own money to get into it. I did not find a single one at face value! I consider myself a very good judge of varieties and evaluating them."
I wish you the best of luck with your investment. Personally, I wouldn't consider investing in a die variety or die error whose nature and origin is obscure and that may never be fully understood.
No offense taken, Brian. I certainly know these gentlemen or know of them. But as I said earlier, relying on authority as a substitute for evidence is as invalid here as it is in a courtroom. An expert witness in a trial still has to present convincing evidence to back up his opinion. Showing up on the witness stand and saying "it is what I say it is and that settles it" will not convince any jury. Reputation and experience count for nothing when you're presenting a case. The only thing that ever matters is the quality of your evidence and the logical consistency of your presentation.
I've got a bit of a reputation myself, but I would never dream of invoking my expertise, long record of publication, and numerous discoveries to back up any particular opinion. Evidence and a logically consistent argument are the only equipment I bring to a debate.
-- Mike Diamond
I have read some of your articles, welcome to the boards. I have a few on the way do you want to take a look at one and give us your opinion?
Cheers,
Brian
<< <i>Mike,
I have read some of your articles, welcome to the boards. I have a few on the way do you want to take a look at one and give us your opinion?
Cheers,
Brian >>
Sure. One of each would be ideal. I can't promise any definitive conclusions, though. Just e-mail me at mdia1@aol.com and we'll make arrangements.
Right now, I don't think anyone can definitively say whether it was only 1 die for each or what and how many are out there.
I went through a couple of rolls last night, no luck.
Brian, you got the roll which supposedly shows 1 on each end. Yet, Rick is saying that there are no complete rolls of them "naturally". For your sake, I hope you get a full roll.
I am tempted to go back to the bank and get the last 8 rolls they have and search them.....
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
I know it has me confused. If they went to banks they had to come in rolls so how could none of them show up in rolls. It is possible I am getting snookered by some put together roll but since I used a CC I can always charge it back so I am not too worried. I would like to get some clarification but I am fairly sure they HAD to come in rolls from the banks.
I am thinking, from what I have seen that this is a genuine mint design error, and if it is confirmed you are not going to be able to touch one of these for what you can buy them for now. Especially since there seems to be just a small hoard that got loose. I could be wrong but if not????
-Tom
------------------------------------------------
<< <i>
errormaven - No offense but you should do your homework about some of the people who post on these boards. I believe Rick knows a few things about varieties, so much so that the "Snow" numbers for Indian cents are the gold standard and recognized by the entire numismastic community. His posts that this is a major variety holds as much weight as if Bill Fivaz or JT Stanon were to post about them (authors of the Cherry pickers guide). Cheers - Brian >>
Mike doesn't need me to defend him, but pick up any copy of ErrorScope from the last three years and you'll find he knows a thing or two about error coins.
I respect Rick's opinion as much as anyone's in the hobby, but I can't get past the fact that he has a vested financial interest in these coins being recognized as a variety. I would equate this to a stockbroker recommending a certain stock as a strong buy, then mentioning that he happens to personally have several thousand shares available for a nominal fee.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
Could be that there is just 1 die of each and when they were all mixed together, 40 didn't end up together in 1 roll.
Time will tell.
Like I said, I would like a few and if I had seen them at FUN, I would probably have gotten a couple....but, I was busy being taken aback by the size of the show, meeting forum members, and searching for either a 1955 DDO Lincoln, 1909s-vdb, or 1926-S buffalo to buy (bought none
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
While it may simply be coincidence, the "down leaf" also has a ribbed appearance. Some commentators have already speculated that the two die imperfections are from the die striking a hard object.
Just throwing out possibilities, here.
<< <i>Some years ago in Errorscope, Chris Pilliod had an article on a 1910 cent that showed a peculiar die dent with longitudinal ribs in the field on the reverse. He concluded that it was from the die striking a metal shaving.
While it may simply be coincidence, the "down leaf" also has a ribbed appearance. Some commentators have already speculated that the two die imperfections are from the die striking a hard object.
Just throwing out possibilities, here. >>
Others have speculated about a hubbing accident, with a metal shaving getting caught between the working hub and the working die. Of course, such an accident would have to have occurred on two separate occasions, and in almost the same spot. That a bit of a stretch. But so is an intentional design modification or an accident during preparation of a master die. Perhaps it's a bit of mischief by a die sinker who wanted to acheive a measure of immortality by planting his own mark on two working dies.
Of course, we still have the die gouge scenario. The 1993-P quarter in the Coin World article with the semi-circular die gouge demonstrates that similar types of damage have occurred in the past. Granted, the semi-circular die gouge in that specimen is shallower, but it's just as regular as the "up leaf".
In any event, I went ahead and got a set, for the neatness factor.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
<< <i>What do you think the chances of these quarters being found in bags still available at the Mint? Has anyone bought a bag or two hoping to find these?
>>
I bought a bag and nada....zip....nutt-ing......
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Others have speculated about a hubbing accident, with a metal shaving getting caught between the working hub and the working die. >>
Just casual observation here but I think the key to determining what happened may be in the detail on the underside of the left husk leaf. The photo above shows a distinct difference from the regular die vs the Hi leaf and Low leaf varieties.
An examination of the proof coins also shows a lack of detail in this area and yes I know that proof dies are different than business strike dies but they are pulled from the same master hub.
Edited from hubs to hub..
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
Just casual observation here but I think the key to determining what happened may be in the detail on the underside of the left husk leaf. The photo above shows a distinct difference from the regular die vs the Hi leaf and Low leaf varieties.
An examination of the proof coins also shows a lack of detail in this area and yes I know that proof dies are different than business strike dies but they are pulled from the same master hub.
Edited from hubs to hub..
This would be significant, if larger samples show a consistent difference between the normals and the up leaf and down leaf samples. Those who have purchased bags of the normals should go through them to see if the lack of detail on the underside of the left husk is a consistent feature. If it varies, that would be interesting, too, and well worth analyzing for patterns.
So what we end up with is a modern twist on the "accented hair" variety - the accented stalk. No names, but I have a list of suspects already....
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
<< <i>
<< <i>
Just casual observation here but I think the key to determining what happened may be in the detail on the underside of the left husk leaf. The photo above shows a distinct difference from the regular die vs the Hi leaf and Low leaf varieties.
An examination of the proof coins also shows a lack of detail in this area and yes I know that proof dies are different than business strike dies but they are pulled from the same master hub.
Edited from hubs to hub..
This would be significant, if larger samples show a consistent difference between the normals and the up leaf and down leaf samples. Those who have purchased bags of the normals should go through them to see if the lack of detail on the underside of the left husk is a consistent feature. If it varies, that would be interesting, too, and well worth analyzing for patterns. >>
If you go back to the 14th post in this thread, you'll see a photo of a normal WI quarter that shows more detail on the underside of the left husk. So we're dealing with something more complex than a simple bimodal distribution.
<< <i>How's this for a hare-brained theory: Someone at the die shop has some idle time and decides to make another leaf on the reverse die. The "high leaf" variety is an early failed attempt at cutting a die, the mark is too regular and doesn't line up properly. Finally he gets one to look like part of the design, the "low leaf" variety, and sneaks it back into production.
So what we end up with is a modern twist on the "accented hair" variety - the accented stalk. No names, but I have a list of suspects already....
Sean Reynolds >>
Sounds quite plausible.
<< <i>
<< <i>Others have speculated about a hubbing accident, with a metal shaving getting caught between the working hub and the working die. >>
Just casual observation here but I think the key to determining what happened may be in the detail on the underside of the left husk leaf. The photo above shows a distinct difference from the regular die vs the Hi leaf and Low leaf varieties.
An examination of the proof coins also shows a lack of detail in this area and yes I know that proof dies are different than business strike dies but they are pulled from the same master hub. >>
(Being serious again)
That is an excellent observation. Looking at the pictures again, even the corn kernels look different on the "low leaf" coin versus the normal and 'high leaf" variety. I could believe the "high leaf" is a die gauge like the 2004 dime and a red herring, with the "low leaf" representing a real design variety. I'm very interested to hear Mike's analysis of the coin in hand.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
Everything I've stated here hase been as factual as is known. If I find anything different, I'll post it here.
Just wondering..........I have 20 P+d sets of U.S. Mint Wisconsin rolls here. Should I break open the rolls and search for the "extra Leaf" quarters?
Please confirm: Is it only on the 2004-d quarters?
Thanks for your advice. Very much appreciated.
San Diego, CA
<< <i>Are these "extra leaf" Wisconsin quarters coming out of U.S. Mint bags only? Or are collectors finding them in the U.S. Mint (orange+black) rolls?
Just wondering..........I have 20 P+d sets of U.S. Mint Wisconsin rolls here. Should I break open the rolls and search for the "extra Leaf" quarters?
Please confirm: Is it only on the 2004-d quarters?
Thanks for your advice. Very much appreciated. >>
As far as anyone knows these were ONLY comming from bank rolls, and specifically from rolls from Tuscon,AZ. Save you rolls for now.
<< <i>So do you guys think which is valuable, the up or down leaf ? >>
I would think if these turn out to be legit design errors they both would be. From what I have read the upper is more rare but also less cool. So who knows.
<< <i>
<< <i>Some years ago in Errorscope, Chris Pilliod had an article on a 1910 cent that showed a peculiar die dent with longitudinal ribs in the field on the reverse. He concluded that it was from the die striking a metal shaving.
While it may simply be coincidence, the "down leaf" also has a ribbed appearance. Some commentators have already speculated that the two die imperfections are from the die striking a hard object.
Just throwing out possibilities, here. >>
Others have speculated about a hubbing accident, with a metal shaving getting caught between the working hub and the working die. Of course, such an accident would have to have occurred on two separate occasions, and in almost the same spot. That a bit of a stretch. But so is an intentional design modification or an accident during preparation of a master die. Perhaps it's a bit of mischief by a die sinker who wanted to acheive a measure of immortality by planting his own mark on two working dies.
Of course, we still have the die gouge scenario. The 1993-P quarter in the Coin World article with the semi-circular die gouge demonstrates that similar types of damage have occurred in the past. Granted, the semi-circular die gouge in that specimen is shallower, but it's just as regular as the "up leaf". >>
I don't believe I have ever seen someone quote themselves. And in consecutive posts. That really wasn't necessary. I believe you are holding yourself up to be the arbiter of whether this is die variation or accidental damage. I don't care what you think. You look ridiculous because your premise depends upon, as Rick Snow put it, "extraordinary coincidence." Your refusal to consider an alternative to that is merely a ploy to place yourself in the way of acceptance of that alternative. Sorry, don't care at this point. Based on your comments, reason doesn't come into play with you. Endless debate of the obvious does. Whatever, find a mirror and have a debate. You owe Rick an apology, too, for impuning his integrity. He was open about his financial interest in this from the outset.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."