ProfHaroldHill

On 1/11/2024 at 2:23 PM, Mike Meenderink said:

Very nice. It looks like an under graded PF CAM. This coin as a proof has medium relative series rarity with a mintage of 3200 and easily acquired in PF 63-65...  but if it was designated PF CAM it would rise considerably in value and rarity. Nice coin. 

Thanks Mike! I think it's probably under-graded and it definitely has cameo contrast, (back then IIRC they didn't designate cameo on 3c Nickels.) But I love those old holders with the gold 'embossing' and no hologram.

Reminds me of the days when I first started sending coins in for grading, so I'd be hard-pressed to send it in for an upgrade!

On 3/2/2021 at 8:40 PM, Conder101 said:

No quarters struck on dime stock do exist and they do not get seriously deformed in the upsetting mill.  Even if they did get a slight warp from the mill the strike would flatten that warp out again.

 

The coin appears etched to me.  One thing that is interesting is they used a corrosive that didn't attack the copper core at a greater rate than the coppernickel which is what usually happens.

Thanks for the heads up, Conder101!

They sure do exist... in numbers! At the Denver Mint in 1970, it seems an entire coil of dime thickness stock was cut to quarter sized blanks by mistake and the error wasn't noticed(?)  The struck pieces, after successfully making it through the coinage process, were released into circulation. The source I read estimated over 100,000 of them were released.

@Hinkle, thanks for the new/better pics. I'm rarely able to go online these days, big workload outside now until late June, or I would have replied sooner after your new pics went up.

After reading up on these errors after Conder's post, and seeing your new and much better pics, I think you were wise to send the coin in. It may well be a damaged error coin, struck on a dime-thickness planchet as you estimate.

I'll be looking forward to hearing about what ANACS has to say.

45 minutes ago, RWB said:

Thanks for correcting my muddled comment. Might be the excitement of finally getting a vaccine jab.

Well you're certainly right about the details. If this was actually manufactured as proposed/hoped by the OP, then it's an error coin that was given an acid bath and a scrub, judging from those surfaces!

35 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

The acid is the far more likely answer.

I'd be curious to see the edge in clear focus, and to see the coin stacked on a normal quarter, for diameter comparison.

A lot of copper can be dissolved away where the copper layer is exposed directly.

2 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

I believe our OP is proposing a quarter sized blank was cut out of dime-thickness roll stock, still a pipe dream. The acid is the far more likely answer.

Didn't catch that part. The blanks proposed would not likely have survived the trip to the coinage dies.

The upsetting mill comes to mind first and foremost. The blanks would probably be seriously deformed, if they didn't jam in the mechanism on the way through.

I'm wondering if it's even possible to set up the blanking equipment that way without it being very obvious what was wrong, well before they would actually begin the blanking process.

11 hours ago, RWB said:

Weight should be about 1/3 heavier than a dime and less than a quarter. If there are no signs of abuse or acid treatment, it might be worth having it authenticated by the hosts.

(PS: The coin surfaces look suspiciously like they have been treated with acid. Also, the design details should be weaker.)

It was soaked in a corrosive and then wiped/scraped, removing a significant amount of metal. Otherwise it's a normal US quarter dollar coin.

A quarter struck on a dime planchet could never have full rims all the way around. There's not enough metal in a dime blank to expand that far and be forced up into a rim, all the way around the edge of the coin.

The pictured 1976 quarter had full normal rims before it was altered.

Definitely not one to send in for authentication(!)

The sorting and packing process is just about complete. The consolation prizes will go out either late today or tomorrow! 

I'll send messages out to everyone who has a prize headed their way once they've shipped. 

Also have a Type One, 13P Gem Buffalo Nickel in a rattler, very decent gem coin. A  newer slab 1883 No Cents Liberty Nickel graded MS 66 by PCGS. Pics soon.

Was working on a rattler gem type set, but decided to focus elsewhere.

This is not a coin that's going to get a 'bean', and it's not a coin to break out and resubmit. It's a nice 64 or low end 65 and PCGS says 65. The pictures make the obverse look nicer than in person.

Also, it's got a small crack in the plastic, as seen in the closeup picture.

Priced accordingly at $120, plus $10 for Insured US Priority Mail shipping. $130 delivered, (Firm.)

SOLD 

Regular PayPal is fine!

Offer valid until noon on Monday, Jan 18, Pacific time. Will ship Tuesday or Wednesday, Jan 19 or 20

I'm not always online, so you may not get a reply right away.

A: When it can be incuse stamped with "COPY" and then be legal to sell.

If it can be stamped COPY and be legal for sale, it was never a counterfeit to begin with, it was only an unmarked "numismatic replica", (such as are the overwhelming majority of coins referred to in this forum as "counterfeit".)

A counterfeit coin is unlawful to manufacture and cannot be made legal to possess, sell, or give away.

On the other hand, it is NOT illegal to manufacture a gorgeous, incredibly precise copy of an 1895 US Proof Morgan Dollar, (or a Seated Dollar, $20 Saint, etc,)  and NOT stamp it copy or mark it in any other fashion identifying it as being fake. You can strike a dozen, keep one and give away eleven to friends and family. No violation of law in doing that, not of the HPA, not of US Federal anti-counterfeiting law.  (Only when numismatic replicas are sold or otherwise 'placed in commerce', is there a requirement that they be clearly indicated as being copies.)

But if you strike up 100,000 precise copies, (including accurate composition,) of any of the currently in-use dollar coins, 'dutifully' stamp them all with COPY as per the HPA, and then begin selling them on ebay for $380 per thousand...

...Well, you're not going to be filling many orders before the Secret Service knocks at your door. The courts won't care that you stamped them COPY, 'in accordance with the HPA'.

It's not only better, scholastically, to be more accurate when involved in publicly discussing fakes and counterfeits, it's also important from the perspective of "legal publishment" of open accusations of counterfeiting..

Lastly, if you don't practice a fair level of precision in the public statements you make with apparent authority, the readers who matter most will assume you're probably not capable of doling so. That's just not good form.

On 1/12/2021 at 8:00 AM, VKurtB said:

This has been done numerous times through even recent history: the Sac mules, the Homestead quarters varieties, the Wisconsin State Quarter extra leaf varieties, Minnesota trees, etc.

Yes, but each of those coins could, in theory, have actually been errors.

The Sacagawea /Lincoln overstrikes, however, cannot possibly be error coins, unlike the others. 

On 1/10/2021 at 10:30 AM, MarkFeld said:

That picture has nothing to do with body-bags.

Neither did the OP's question!

The thread is about which is better, resubmitting the coins in-holder, or cracking the coins out and sending them in "raw".

From the original posters' first post:

On 1/9/2021 at 8:55 PM, rocket23 said:

A few more of these posts and they'll be just a 5 th place winner.......joking,

  This is extremely generous my good man!!

Very generous indeed. A few others in addition to Just Bob have now also kindly offered their share back into the 'pool' for the rest of the entrants. Good crowd here, no doubt. (My grandsons are very happy to see some people giving their share to everyone else!)

 You know, rocket23, if trends continue, a couple of the mixes might get pretty close to the value of one of the 4 original prizes. Tough to say right now tho.

The next step in this ongoing process will be the simultaneous filing of public complaint with the offices of the US Attorneys General and the CA State Attorneys General.

My complaint is in regard to what I believe is an unfair and deceptive business practice.

Specifically, the explicit labelling of these items as error coins and the implicit representation, by that false labelling, of the coins being items lawful to own, when in fact the coins were known to the company to be intentionally made, and were not legally released by the US Mint.

Any claim to such legal status without official document to back it, is a material misrepresentation of a potential buyers right to hold legal title to the item.

The US Mint will also get copies of all of the hardcopy follow up letters to everyone else.

Patience is virtuous in these sorts of matters. Be virtuous!

2007... Old thread indeed.

Even older question!

In my opinion....