No. That is the way they look. First S-mint quarter.
Bob >>
The mint mark appears to have been punched in upside down. It adds a little more interest to the coin.
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 ... ?
No. That is the way they look. First S-mint quarter.
Bob >>
The mint mark appears to have been punched in upside down. It adds a little more interest to the coin. >>
I think you may be right...I haven't compared it to my briggs book yet, but this seems like the best explaination. I still think it looks a little thin though.
Comments
<< <i>I think he's a good dealer, but the "S" on the reverse just seems off to me...what do you think?
Ebay >>
No. That is the way they look. First S-mint quarter.
Bob
<< <i>
<< <i>I think he's a good dealer, but the "S" on the reverse just seems off to me...what do you think?
Ebay >>
No. That is the way they look. First S-mint quarter.
Bob >>
The mint mark appears to have been punched in upside down. It adds a little more interest to the coin.
Larry Briggs' "Comprehensive Encyclopedia" calls that REVERSE B -
the mint mark does not touch the stem or the feather.
Remember that these mint marks were hand punched and there
are three mint mark locations for this date.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Coin collecting is not a hobby, it's an obsession !
New Barber Purchases
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I think he's a good dealer, but the "S" on the reverse just seems off to me...what do you think?
Ebay >>
No. That is the way they look. First S-mint quarter.
Bob >>
The mint mark appears to have been punched in upside down. It adds a little more interest to the coin. >>
I think you may be right...I haven't compared it to my briggs book yet, but this seems like the best explaination. I still think it looks a little thin though.
Lance.
<< <i>Coin is genuine, no question >>
Agreed. And unfortunately not an worn example of a branch mint proof of that year, of which only one is known (Auction '86)