I recently unearthed a bicentennial 3 coin set and the Quarter has a missing 9 in 1976. Has anyone else seen one of these, and how much is it worth? setset2set3set4
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 ... ?
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Also won the PNG's Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
As for the value, it is rather minor in nature, so I would not put that much of a premium on it, even with it being the three-coin set. Maybe you can list it for a few dollars over whatever the quarter normally sells for.
By the way- anybody know what I'm doing wrong with my profile pic? It keeps saying ti is too large, but when I reduce it to 100x100 and reduce the pixels to 72 the pic is the size of a pinhead. I'm mossing something somewhere...
<< <i>By the way- anybody know what I'm doing wrong with my profile pic? It keeps saying ti is too large, but when I reduce it to 100x100 and reduce the pixels to 72 the pic is the size of a pinhead. I'm mossing something somewhere... >>
If your avatar is supposed to be a shark attacking a toy boat in mercury, looks fine to me.
<< <i>By the way- anybody know what I'm doing wrong with my profile pic? It keeps saying ti is too large, but when I reduce it to 100x100 and reduce the pixels to 72 the pic is the size of a pinhead. I'm mossing something somewhere... >>
Maximum image size is 100 pixels by 100 pixels at 10 KB.
thaqt's all you get. it will be small.
some image editing software will change the zoom on the image to fit the larger sizes to the screen, but it won't re-zoom when you shink. check the zoom.
<< <i>Thanks everyone! Just curious, but why is this considered minor but a missing "S" set is not? Isn't it an inspection issue when it's a sealed set? >>
It's considered minor because it is commonplace, and it is not a die error. A bit like a strike-through. Some junk gets in the way. Lance.
<< <i>Thanks everyone! Just curious, but why is this considered minor but a missing "S" set is not? Isn't it an inspection issue when it's a sealed set? >>
a missing mintmark is a full feature that the mint would otherwise require on the coin.
the 9 is just a partial feature missing.
plus there is a bit of the 9 there, so that makes it even more minor.
These 3 piece Bicentential coin sets were mass produced, with almost 5 million sets being sold for $9.00 each
Quality control consisted of random inspection as they were coming off the presses. As stated before, the culprit was probably debris lodged in the 9 of the die.
As to value, it is minimal. The coins you spoke of missing the mint mark "S" is a true mint error as the mint mark was inadvertently left off the proof dies by San Fransisco mint employee's.
<< <i>Thanks everyone! Just curious, but why is this considered minor but a missing "S" set is not? Isn't it an inspection issue when it's a sealed set? >>
One reason is that on those rare proofs missing the S it was a mistake when they made the die. All the coins from those dies had that which makes them a "die variety". There's a different market, the mistake required them messing up making the die then not noticing it on the coins and when they noticed they probably stopped using the die or fixed it. There would be a limited number made and die variety collectors want an example of exactly that variety. To someone that collects them they might pay a lot for "that variety".
The filled/clogged die is an error and sort of unique to each coin. There might be more from different dies. It's a quality control issue from grease or gunk on a normal die. Since they're unique they're not collected the same way. A collector that wants an example of a filled die can get one from a different die or a different area on the die. There's no such thing as a "full set" since they're all different/unique. So when selling it nobody says "that's the variety I always searched for".
Still it might get a premium if someone really wants it but probably not much.
<< <i>Thanks everyone! Just curious, but why is this considered minor but a missing "S" set is not? Isn't it an inspection issue when it's a sealed set? >>
Th2ere is still evidence of the numeral 9 on the coin and at the very minimum, a disruption of the field.
On the missing "S" Mintmarks, there is no disruption on the field as the mark was simply not punched into the die.
Grease filled dies only count when there's a LOT of grease filled devices.
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.
Comments
the thread.
bob
Steve
mbogoman
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/classic-issues-colonials-through-1964/zambezi-collection-trade-dollars/7345Asesabi Lutho
it's been slow this weekend.
maybe someone with error value knowledge will be around later or tomorrow.
My guess is grease filled die.
<< <i>
My guess is grease filled die. >>
Mine too.
Welcome to the club!
Lance.
<< <i>
My guess is grease filled die. >>
<< <i>By the way- anybody know what I'm doing wrong with my profile pic? It keeps saying ti is too large, but when I reduce it to 100x100 and reduce the pixels to 72 the pic is the size of a pinhead. I'm mossing something somewhere... >>
If your avatar is supposed to be a shark attacking a toy boat in mercury, looks fine to me.
<< <i>By the way- anybody know what I'm doing wrong with my profile pic? It keeps saying ti is too large, but when I reduce it to 100x100 and reduce the pixels to 72 the pic is the size of a pinhead. I'm mossing something somewhere... >>
Maximum image size is 100 pixels by 100 pixels at 10 KB.
thaqt's all you get. it will be small.
some image editing software will change the zoom on the image to fit the larger sizes to the screen, but it won't re-zoom when you shink. check the zoom.
<< <i>Thanks everyone! Just curious, but why is this considered minor but a missing "S" set is not? Isn't it an inspection issue when it's a sealed set? >>
It's considered minor because it is commonplace, and it is not a die error. A bit like a strike-through. Some junk gets in the way.
Lance.
<< <i>Thanks everyone! Just curious, but why is this considered minor but a missing "S" set is not? Isn't it an inspection issue when it's a sealed set? >>
a missing mintmark is a full feature that the mint would otherwise require on the coin.
the 9 is just a partial feature missing.
plus there is a bit of the 9 there, so that makes it even more minor.
Quality control consisted of random inspection as they were coming off the presses. As stated before, the culprit was probably debris lodged in the 9 of the die.
As to value, it is minimal. The coins you spoke of missing the mint mark "S" is a true mint error as the mint mark was inadvertently left off the proof dies by San Fransisco mint employee's.
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
<< <i>Thanks everyone! Just curious, but why is this considered minor but a missing "S" set is not? Isn't it an inspection issue when it's a sealed set? >>
One reason is that on those rare proofs missing the S it was a mistake when they made the die. All the coins from those dies had that which makes them a "die variety". There's a different market, the mistake required them messing up making the die then not noticing it on the coins and when they noticed they probably stopped using the die or fixed it. There would be a limited number made and die variety collectors want an example of exactly that variety. To someone that collects them they might pay a lot for "that variety".
The filled/clogged die is an error and sort of unique to each coin. There might be more from different dies. It's a quality control issue from grease or gunk on a normal die. Since they're unique they're not collected the same way. A collector that wants an example of a filled die can get one from a different die or a different area on the die. There's no such thing as a "full set" since they're all different/unique. So when selling it nobody says "that's the variety I always searched for".
Still it might get a premium if someone really wants it but probably not much.
<< <i>Thanks everyone! Just curious, but why is this considered minor but a missing "S" set is not? Isn't it an inspection issue when it's a sealed set? >>
Th2ere is still evidence of the numeral 9 on the coin and at the very minimum, a disruption of the field.
On the missing "S" Mintmarks, there is no disruption on the field as the mark was simply not punched into the die.
Grease filled dies only count when there's a LOT of grease filled devices.
The name is LEE!