Would finding a 1963-D/S Washington Quarter be a big deal?....Pics added

Crazy4Coins · July 22, 2012 8:45AM

Need some help from the Washington Quarter guys.

I'm quite confident that I have a 1963-D/S Washington in my hands. I had a few rolls of uncircularted Washingtons, so I did some roll searching today.

Found a few Type B Reverses, including a very nice '61 that I will post in another thread, but this D/S has peaked my interest. I've searched around and can't find any mention of the variety.

What's interesting is that the last "S" mint quarter was in 1953, so they would have had to use a pretty old die, correct? It looks like a Type A reverse, so not a proof die.

Thoughts?

I'll try to get some close up pics.

LanceNewmanOCC · July 22, 2012 9:10AM

.
d/s from my data

i do see the 2 listed d/d, thanks morgandollar1878
.

crazyhounddog · July 22, 2012 9:16AM

I for one would like to see the images. It could, however, be a die chip.

Crazy4Coins · July 22, 2012 9:21AM

<< <i>I for one would like to see the images. It could, however, be a die chip. >>

No die chip. Shape of an S under the D. The inside loop of the S is also visible inside the D.

I'll try to figure out how to get close-up pics. This should be fun.

Crazy4Coins · July 22, 2012 10:35AM

I'll work on some better close-ups.

messydesk · July 22, 2012 12:10PM

Did you poke it with a stick?

Seriously, this is one of the running joke, yet serious, standard responses that shows up on VAMWorld when there's something on a coin that seems just too bizarre to be true, and this falls into that category.

First thing I'd do is get some flat pictures under a microscope of this and a few 1953-S quarters and do some overlays to show that it's plausibly a D/S. Then it needs to be examined by James Wiles, or whoever the CONECA quarter guy is. Meanwhile, you'll have to find a second, corroborating specimen, at which time this will become a Very Big Deal™.

Crazy4Coins · July 22, 2012 12:18PM

<< <i>Did you poke it with a stick?

Seriously, this is one of the running joke, yet serious, standard responses that shows up on VAMWorld when there's something on a coin that seems just too bizarre to be true, and this falls into that category.

First thing I'd do is get some flat pictures under a microscope of this and a few 1953-S quarters and do some overlays to show that it's plausibly a D/S. Then it needs to be examined by James Wiles, or whoever the CONECA quarter guy is. Meanwhile, you'll have to find a second, corroborating specimen, at which time this will become a Very Big Deal™. >>

Thanks for the reply John.

Actually, I did somewhat of a crude overlay and what appears to be an underlying S, matches the 53-s mintmark location.....

and better yet.......I already have a second specimen.

DIMEMAN · July 22, 2012 12:40PM

Wow, very interesting......hope it is really a D/S!!!

I guarentee there will be some nay sayers here before long.

messydesk · July 22, 2012 1:09PM

Two specimens. Yeah, this just got interesting. Send them both for examination, assuming they're the same die pair. Even if it's not conclusively a D/S, If it looks enough like one that some would think that it was, it could gain a lot of popularity. It's scarce compared with the mintage of the 63-D quarter, as it is but one die of hundreds. It might be found in roll quantities, it might not be.

morgandollar1878 · July 22, 2012 2:59PM

There are two listings in CONECA for a D/D RPM, however your example does not match the description of either variety. Maybe you found a new RPM. For your sake I hope it is a D/S, but I think that it is unlikely. It could be a D/D/D RPM which would be pretty cool also. Congrats on finding them.

Overdate · July 22, 2012 3:36PM

The last "S" mint quarter was in 1954. Might try matching up with one of those.

19Lyds · July 22, 2012 3:40PM

This makes no sense at all since there simply was not an S Mintmark in 1963.

IF, through some freak occurance, an S mint mark had been used then certainly by now, one would have shown uop and been documented.

Treashunt · July 22, 2012 9:27PM

considering that the "S" is incuse, and not raised, I have to doubt the D/S.

lasvegasteddy · July 22, 2012 10:46PM

sweet
any chance of a straight on image?

messydesk · July 22, 2012 11:10PM

<< <i>This makes no sense at all since there simply was not an S Mintmark in 1963. >>

Same goes for the 1900-O/CC dollars.

Would finding a 1963-D/S Washington Quarter be a big deal?....Pics added

Comments

Leave a Comment