Oldhoopster

The Canadian quarter IS NOT an error of any kind. Knowledgeable members who understand the minting process have told you it can't occur during the minting process. It's heavy circulation damage Edit to add In order for a coin to be an error you must be able to describe how it occurred during the minting or die making process. Just because it looks different or you can't explain how the damage occurred doesn't make it an error. There are countless ways for a coin to be damaged, but only a limited number of ways for an error to occur

Sorry, but all of the coins are damaged. Not an error of any kind

All coins authenticated as1964 SMS came from the estate of a former mint director. If you didn't buy yours in the late 80s from that auction or one that had been subsequently slabbed, you don't have one. None were released through public channels Quit looking looking at the "get rich from pocket change" sites. They could have easily written the truth about this coin, but are going for clicks, not educating collectors. Bunch of junk

There is an X scratched across the Eagle. I can't say for certain, but It might be large enough to knock it into a details holder. Otherwise, I think it's a cool coin

Fakey McFakeface

I understand where you're coming from and am not criticizing your opinion but look at it from my perspective. Although I would not personally pay big $$ for coins like you mentioned, I absolutely enjoy the history we can learn from them. How did people conduct commerce 250 years ago? How did they manage when there were significant coin shortages? How many of the contemporary counterfeits were made out of necessity and how many were from the needed do wells trying to make a profit? What were the relationships between the early government and private mints? How did people try to get around counterfeiting by making worn pieces like Canadian blacksmith tokens? We can learn a lot through numismatics This stuff fascinates me and drives my passion to learn more not only about this topic but numerous other areas of numismatics. That's why I place so much value on my library as well as my coins I also understand that there are many different areas in numismatics for people to pursue their interests. I've spent my share of time chasing dates and mintmarks and have complete sets of Indians, Buffalos, and Barbers to name a few. I loved the thrill of the hunt to find that special coin to add to the Album. Even though it's not my thing, I understand your passion to find that high grade French Rooster and that's no less important to you than for me wanting to learn as much history as possible. We all have our areas of interest that are important to us. Who is to say that some are better than others.

There is a fuzzy area with contemporary counterfeits where many can have differing opinions. I consider the following collectable: They were made to pass a circulating currency, not to fool/cheat collectors They were made during a similar time period as the date suggests So Ali Express Chinese = No. Henning Nickels = Yes. Omega gold counterfeits = No. 18th century British and Spanish CCs = YES. Ancient Roman Limes = Yes. Carr replicas = Maybe (disclosure, I have no interest in his work). Paper Currency = I'm not opening that can of worms Just my opinion and this is a topic that can have many different and passionate opinions.

Years ago, I started to put together a BIE date/mm set as a fun side project. I was soon distracted and have no idea where they ended up. Now that you brought up the topic, I think a BIE date set would be a cool, inexpensive, and fun project to work on. In hindsight, I shouldn't have given up on it

I was completely unaware that the owner of CT sold coins and never saw anything that would indicate the owner sold coins or was critical of the coins members had posted. Maybe I missed something. Can you you post any specific links or references so we can see the details? That would go a long way to corroborate your claim. I do know that at least one of the moderators is a dealer, but can't recall him trashing other members coins, but then again maybe I missed something. Any additional details would be very interesting, so please provide what you have.

As others have said, high heat caused the clad layers to separate and form a bubble AFTER it left the mint. It is not an error

It's a contemporary counterfeit. 18th century Counterfeit British coppers and colonial spanish contemporary counterfeits are highly collectable and in no way related to modern Chinese fake junk made to cheat collectors. The references to Mr Vlack's book and Eric Newman's collection should be an indication that this is an area worthy of numismatic research and collecting. If I recall correctly, there is another book or website that classifies these CCs by a number of different types and similar info is out there for Spanish colonial CCs. Not sure what you mean by "Some of the more persistently vocal anti-counterfeitists on the Forum may want to have a go at this". CCs are a legitimate area for numismatic study, research, and collecting. Now, if you think $3600 is too much for a Geo III CC, that's a completely different question (I have no opinion on that)

@Coinbuf post summarized my thoughts as well. My first impression was an RPM but I found nothing on Wexlers doubleddie.com or varietyvista.com. The radial flow lines do give me pause, but it looks like something more than die deterioration. I'm not going to offer an opinion, because I don't know. However, I like the suggestion of checking with the CONECA people.

This is exactly how I feel about my reference library I recall the comment, "I need these the same way a plumber needs his wrench."

I don't think that's applicable to a reference library. Not including auction catalogs, I have a few hundred true reference books. I'm not going to get rid of a book used to attribute bust halves because I got a new book on attributing large cents, for example. These reference books get used (albeit sometimes sparingly). Why would I want to get rid of a useful tool in attributing coins. Maybe that strategy works if you collect books but I see it as very limiting and short sighted for a numismatic reference library, where the books are actually used, not sitting on a shelf collecting dust. Just my thoughts. Everybody is welcome to their own opinion.

Not seeing anything. Here is the overlay from www.maddieclashes.com

Sorry, but this is a fake. This coin type has been frequently counterfeited and copies can be purchased at many tourist locations in the middle east.

It seems to be close to RIC 182 (From wildwinds). I think the obverse legend matches up but it's hard to tell on your coin https://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/severus_alexander/RIC_0182.1.jpg

Because it can't occur during the minting process. A coin isn't an error because you CAN'T explain how the damage occurred. A coin is an error because you CAN explain how it occurred during the minting process. The simple answer to anyone who knows the minting process is that these are obviously damaged. People giving you answers are very knowledgeable of the minting process. Some have decades of collecting experience. When all of these experienced collectors tell you the same thing, do you think they are just blowing smoke at you or messing with the new guy? No, they are giving you factual info from years of experience to help you. Sorry to sound rude, but the damage on both your coins should be obvious to even a new collector who has spent a minimal amount of time researching the minting process Go to www.doubleddie.com and look at the tabs explaining how coins and dies are made. Or you can keep insinuating that multiple members on this site are messing with you and giving you inaccurate info, which is ABSOLUTELY false and a good way to end up on ignore lists Or, if you don't like the answers you're getting, work with your local coin dealer, or find another site that will give you the answers you want to hear.

Sorry, but there is no doubling or die cracks. As has been said previously by knowledgeable collectors, the gouges are contact marks from circulation wear and damage, not errors. NO NEED for more pics. Die cracks are raised on the surface of a coin, not recessed. The edge dents are damage, nothing more Reeding is formed by the collar during striking. When the reeded edge of one coin hits another coin, it can leave a contact mark. I don't see any marks like this on your coin. Regardless, they are considered damage, not errors IN GOD WE TRUST is not doubled, it is due to die wear and not an error Hope this helps

I did a graduate thesis, so had pretty much free range in the chem and materials labs and with the analytical equipment (as long as you didn't blow anything up) BTW. at 2850 F, a clad quarter will completely melt and soak into a piece refractory brick. I did a lot of work with anhydrous ammonia. You know very quickly if your system isn't completely sealed.

Ferric chloride (Nic-a-date) etches the copper from the 75Cu25Ni alloy. Nitric acid also works well. I raised dates on a lot of slick coins using concentrated HNO3 back in college. Both work on nickels. However, I could never get HNO3 to work on 90% SL quarters

I ordered them through 2018, then gave up. I got tired of returning poor quality sets for replacements and the prices were increasing. If I want one now, I just buy it on the secondary market where it's usually cheaper than the mint

If anyone is interested, I believe these are the books QA is referencing. I have both volumes and find the useful. QA, please make the correction if you didn't get Gadoury

I've ordered from him a number of times but only had a chance to talk to him at shows occasionally. He was very nice and willing to share info. I learned a lot from our brief conversations and really like and respect that from a dealer. Great guy

I had the same problem when I started with ancients. Had the books and was familiar with all the players, just never heard the names spoken. I called tet-TRI-cus , Tet-tri-cus, vic-tor-I-nus was incorrect as VIC-tor-i-nus, and had wasn't even close to Elagabalus. Dealer Allen Berman helped me at a show and I am ever greatful. It was a little embarrassing as I was getting good at attribution and used references like RIC but couldn't pronounce the names.