Does this look real (quarter on a silver dime planchet)?
kalshacon
Posts: 647 ✭✭✭
Does this look like the real deal? The weight is correct for a silver dime. Opinions on market value if it is real?
0
Comments
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
....by gum, i think you got it!!
and/or any raggedness to the eagle's design details (other than stretching from the strike). This is
one to be careful about, as it seems there are as many fakes as real coins.
For example, look at the reverse at K-3, how the planchet extends beyond the wing in the center but the bottom of the wing is not struck. Under the pressure of a genuine strike the path of least resistance would be up into the design on the face of the die, so I would expect the coin to be a little out of round because the metal flowed into bottom of the wing, not out to the side of it.
No matter what, I think you should get that coin certified before spending or asking a lot of money for it. I hope for your sake that I'm wrong, it would be one heck of a find.
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'm going to go out on a limb and predict that is a genuine silver dime planchet struck by fake quarter dies. I've never seen an off-metal with such an irregular shape before, it shouldn't be that far out of round if it were struck by a standard press so I think it might have been struck at much lower pressure by a homemade set of dies.
For example, look at the reverse at K-3, how the planchet extends beyond the wing in the center but the bottom of the wing is not struck. Under the pressure of a genuine strike the path of least resistance would be up into the design on the face of the die, so I would expect the coin to be a little out of round because the metal flowed into bottom of the wing, not out to the side of it.
No matter what, I think you should get that coin certified before spending or asking a lot of money for it. I hope for your sake that I'm wrong, it would be one heck of a find.
Sean Reynolds >>
My gut feeling was OK, but what you say is not unreasonable. Certification is an excellent idea here.
Just to play devil's advocate, why would a false die strike be more inclined to expand so unevenly?
Different press that squeezes the planchet rather than giving it a high-speed, knuckle-action strike?
Type one blank?
TD
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Does the shadow on Washington's profile strike anyone else as highly unusual? >>
Considering the extreme metal displacement in that direction, no. However, that still does not mean that the coin is genuine or not genuine.
TD
I quite agree. It is an early clad design used for most of the 1965-1967's. I can see centerlines in the tailfeathers. The weakness in the bottom edge of the horizontal wing section to the viewers left is typical of that version of clad. You might say the wing is feathered into the field.
could be, but I was leaning towards Type B
because of the detail on the eagles claws - but we both agree it is not Type A found on over 90% of the silver Washington quarters
could be, but I was leaning towards Type B
because of the detail on the eagles claws - but we both agree it is not Type A found on over 90% of the silver Washington quarters>>
What folk called type C here consists of 6 different minor varieties by 1973.
This does not look like a B to me since:
1) There is a gap between the leaf and arrowpoints
2) The bottom arrowpoint has a sharp barb.
3) THe leaf in the intersection of stem ends on the left is short
4) now it gets fuzzy, but I think I see a top arrowpoint with a sharp barb
5) The leaf does not extend above this ghostly arrowpoint
While I see no evidence of a counterfeit from my vantage point, it's admittedly not an ideal vantage point. Close-up inspection under a microscope is mandatory. I have encountered several fake double denomination errors and double strikes from the early 1960's in which the second strike was delivered by counterfeit dies. They are quite convincing-looking.
Here is one:
It's a flipover double strike with a first-strike brockage of the obverse design on the reverse face of the second strike.
This coin was actually (and inadvertently) sold as a genuine double strike to an unsuspecting collector by a well-known error dealer. It took me all of ten seconds to determine the second strike was counterfeit, since the second strike shows proof-like fields and some heavy die cracks.
It might mkae the use of a clad quarter die more plausible. There might have been a time when a mint was striking both silver dimes and clad quarters. Off hand, I don't know.l
Here is one:>>
That is amazing. Are you sure it is a counterfeit?
The original strike is NOT a type B.
That overstrike on the obverse of the original coin is an excellent imitation of a type B, and would be the first counterfeit of a type B that I ever did see.
1) The leaf sticks above the arrowpoints
2) The top arrowhead has no barb.
3) The underside of the wings are in obvious higher relief like a type B.
All three of these look exactly like a type B had ought to. I could recommend this picture as an illustration of type B PUP's.
Edit: changed "would" to "could". I am having more doubts about the genuineness of the type "B" part.
<< <i><<I have encountered several fake double denomination errors and double strikes from the early 1960's in which the second strike was delivered by counterfeit dies. They are quite convincing-looking.
Here is one:>>
That is amazing. Are you sure it is a counterfeit?
The original strike is NOT a type B.
That overstrike on the obverse of the original coin is an excellent imitation of a type B, and would be the first counterfeit of a type B that I ever did see.
1) The leaf sticks above the arrowpoints
2) The top arrowhead has no barb.
3) The underside of the wings are in obvious higher relief like a type B.
All three of these look exactly like a type B had ought to. I would recommend this picture as an illustration of type B PUP's. >>
<< <i>He is asking $600 for it as part of a larger deal. >>
That seems to be the "right" price for a genuine piece. I'm surprised -- I would have guessed more, off the top of my head. Shows what I know. Heritage has sold several, from $490-$750, most of those with dates. [Heritage link]
<< <i>The shadow profile is an example of "surface film doubling". It develops when there is a slight film of lubricant on the surface of the planchet. I see it fairly frequently in genuine broadstrikes and off-center strikes. Whether this can be construed as a sign of authenticity is unclear.
While I see no evidence of a counterfeit from my vantage point, it's admittedly not an ideal vantage point. Close-up inspection under a microscope is mandatory. I have encountered several fake double denomination errors and double strikes from the early 1960's in which the second strike was delivered by counterfeit dies. They are quite convincing-looking.
Here is one:
It's a flipover double strike with a first-strike brockage of the obverse design on the reverse face of the second strike.
This coin was actually (and inadvertently) sold as a genuine double strike to an unsuspecting collector by a well-known error dealer. It took me all of ten seconds to determine the second strike was counterfeit, since the second strike shows proof-like fields and some heavy die cracks. >>
The second strike is also a totally different die design. Type B if I'm not mistaken.
The name is LEE!
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>
<< <i>He is asking $600 for it as part of a larger deal. >>
That seems to be the "right" price for a genuine piece. I'm surprised -- I would have guessed more, off the top of my head. Shows what I know. Heritage has sold several, from $490-$750, most of those with dates. [Heritage link] >>
Looking at the auctions in that Heritage link, I'm even more convinced that the coin in the OP is not a genuine Mint error. Every one of the coins in the Heritage archives is perfectly round or nearly so. As Tom D said in his follow-up to my earlier post, I believe this coin was a genuine silver dime blank which was not so much struck by but squeezed between fake quarter dies. That would account for the unusual metal flow.
To the folks on this thread who are able to pick out which reverse type these coins are, can you clarify something for me - are the second strike on errormaven's known fake and the OPs coin the same type, and was that type in use during the period when these coins were made (1964)?
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
The OP's quarter type looks to me to be one that was in use from 1965-1972. Silver dimes were still being made in 1965 and maybe early 1966.
Errormaven's second strike looks like an exceptionaly good imitation (?) of a type B. This was in use from 1937-1972 and was being used for proofs in 1964 and also on some business circulation strikes at Philadelphia.
edit - her's a way out thought.
Would it be possible for some wise guy at the mint to take a discarded proof die and a sledge hammer and wack the die into the coin?
If it's real it's well worth slabbing. Make's me wonder why it's raw
<< <i>Not saying I'm sure it's fake but if I wanted it I'd tell the seller to get it slabbed or forget it.
If it's real it's well worth slabbing. Make's me wonder why it's raw
There are many coins that are not in plastic simply because the CURRENT owner does not care.
Not being in plastic is not a valid reason to suspect the authenticity of a coin.
Putting a coin like this in plastic makes it much easier to sell to the NEXT owner.
TD
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>He is asking $600 for it as part of a larger deal. >>
That seems to be the "right" price for a genuine piece. I'm surprised -- I would have guessed more, off the top of my head. Shows what I know. Heritage has sold several, from $490-$750, most of those with dates. [Heritage link] >>
Looking at the auctions in that Heritage link, I'm even more convinced that the coin in the OP is not a genuine Mint error. Every one of the coins in the Heritage archives is perfectly round or nearly so. As Tom D said in his follow-up to my earlier post, I believe this coin was a genuine silver dime blank which was not so much struck by but squeezed between fake quarter dies. That would account for the unusual metal flow.
To the folks on this thread who are able to pick out which reverse type these coins are, can you clarify something for me - are the second strike on errormaven's known fake and the OPs coin the same type, and was that type in use during the period when these coins were made (1964)?
Sean Reynolds >>
The uneven metal flow of the first coin pictured in this thread is exactly what I would expect for genuine quarter dies stamped on a dime blank. Where the design relief is low on both sides, the metal is squished out farther in a radial direction. Where the design relief is higher, it "steals" metal away from the edge keeping the diameter a little smaller at that location. I see the same effect often, while doing my own minting.
it was in all probability struck here in
Southern California.
The Fake Kennedy dramatic errors are
fairly easy to tell; the Quarters can be
more difficult.
If the surface of the coin, or the second
strike, is proof-like, that's a sign of being
NG - as well as other charactoristics.
Some have dates 1963-D, N.D. "D" rev.,
(never studied the rev. type); most of
them have a very distinctive 'look' to them,
as far as strike, and even the overall color
of the coin surface, which can be a light grey
color,compared to the pure 'white' silver color
of a genuine coin.