Yes it is. Philadelphia had this thing against D marks on their production floor. I'm guessing that you would recommend this 1935 plain be sent in for authentication?
Yes it is. Philadelphia had this thing against D marks on their production floor. I'm guessing that you would recommend this 1935 plain be sent in for authentication?
You mock yet looked at what happened in 1989 with the Washington quarter.
1935, and it's simply been
smashed a bid, after it was
in circulation.
It's not an error, so please don't
waste any fees whatsoever.
Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors for PCGS. A 50+ Year PNG Member.A full-time numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022.
Back when I was in high school, I spotted what looked like a 1943 copper cent. After I compared it with the date style of the 1943 cent (It had a blob that looked like a "3" and not a "3" that was larger and below the horizontal line of the "4", which was required), I concluded that it was post mint damage, although I didn't know about such fancy language back then. My father was convinced otherwise and insisted on taking it to one of the guys at the Gimbels Coin Department.
The guy my father ended up showing this treasure to was the coin clerk knew the least in the department. He declared that there was "no such thing as a 1943 copper cent" which made my father's find instantly worthless without looking at it. So ended the saga of out "1943 copper cent."
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
Comments
Yep.
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress
To me it just looks like a beat up 1935 with a possible die chip in the date.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Die chipped 1933? Worn to about goodish levels. (Don't sent it in for grading as it is likely to disapoint.)
1935.
Looks like a deformed 1935 to me.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
"Missing D mint mark"?
Yes it is. Philadelphia had this thing against D marks on their production floor. I'm guessing that you would recommend this 1935 plain be sent in for authentication?
Just PMD to the '5'.... Cheers, RickO
You mock yet looked at what happened in 1989 with the Washington quarter.
1935, and it's simply been
smashed a bid, after it was
in circulation.
It's not an error, so please don't
waste any fees whatsoever.
1935
Fan of the Oxford Comma
CCAC Representative of the General Public
2021 Young Numismatist of the Year
This simply a smashed date.
Back when I was in high school, I spotted what looked like a 1943 copper cent. After I compared it with the date style of the 1943 cent (It had a blob that looked like a "3" and not a "3" that was larger and below the horizontal line of the "4", which was required), I concluded that it was post mint damage, although I didn't know about such fancy language back then. My father was convinced otherwise and insisted on taking it to one of the guys at the Gimbels Coin Department.
The guy my father ended up showing this treasure to was the coin clerk knew the least in the department. He declared that there was "no such thing as a 1943 copper cent" which made my father's find instantly worthless without looking at it. So ended the saga of out "1943 copper cent."
I would say it's a 1935