Options
Any thoughts on this 1932-D
Jmitch
Posts: 4 ✭
0
Jmitch
Posts: 4 ✭
Comments
Since you give us no hint as to whatever question you may have, I'll take a stab:
This is a key-date for the series, not much worn. The photos, while nicely detailed, don't allow me to get much a sense for what the coin looks like. I am guessing that it's AU by details, but its surfaces look off to me, as it it has been cleaned.
I'm always cautious on 32-D & S quarters that aren't slabbed.
Just saying, but the D mintmark looks not to be worn as much as the rest of the reverse. Could it have been added? I'll leave that call to someone with way more experience than I have.............
"Memento mori !"
Photos are not adequate to even begin to offer an opinion of the coin.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
the first picture is slightly cut-off and, worse, a bit fuzzy and looks like some used the "pastel" filter on it. it is also over lit.
the reverse is clearer but still a little fuzzy.
both photos' white balance is off. is it really that color? no.
the closeup of the mintmark is probably good for you, but since the 32-d could be a 32 with an added mintmark, the closeup is not at all useful for any determination
i suspect the fuzziness is from taking the picture and then using tech to do "closeups."
get closeups using the phone and don't post-process zoom them. then crop to just the coin. a closeup of just the mintmark will be a challenge, but is necessary
the fuzziness and lighting makes guessing the grade really tough
good luck with the new photos
Looks like an added mintmark. Put a few drops of acetone on the mintmark to see if it falls off.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
The shape and style of the D looks correct as far as I can tell; the images blur when I try to zoom.
That said though, the D seems to “float” on the surface rather than be slightly sunken in, and also seems slightly smaller, so I agree with @PerryHall.
I would not buy one that is raw.
Would like to see a clear closeup of the mintmark.
The style may be different but can’t say for sure with present photo.
Thread coin 1932 quarter shown below. My filtering.
.
.
My 1932, fresh photo's.
.
.
.
Something's up,
with the photo's shown by the the thread posted. No effort used for a proper reply.