shaney777

You'll have to use a microscope or macro lens attachment for anyone to properly diagnose such an error/variety.

On 1/5/2022 at 7:12 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Two thoughts...

What the GSA holder's "problem" is its generic simplicity and indistictive look. They look like they were made for display; security likely was a secondary consideratiin. Fodder for those with creative instincts.

The reports about fakes in PCGS holders are going to wane as their latest generation security chip embedded holders with Near Field Technology [NFT] begin to infiltrate the market place.

Misc:  I bought a coin from a "historical company" with a little-known name and when I Googled it, the internet lit up (the same way North West Territories did) and I discovered it was totally disreputable, had cheated investors out of a lot of money and had since been dissolved, a development that can occur when you fail to do your due diligence as a collector. Luckily for me, it passed muster with a TPGS. 🐓 

I quite like the chip idea. Assume the web link goes to a high quality photo of the coin? If not, I wonder how difficult it would be to open the holder and replace the coin with something inferior or counterfeit. Unfortunately this still doesn't protect buyers from counterfeits that fool TPGs.

17 hours ago, RWB said:

The explanation ATS seems to be that it is a software bug (not a 17-year cicada) not related to content. Maybe if you try again it will post.

Haha  cool, thank you!! I'll try it again then.

18 hours ago, cladking said:

Back in the day if you didn't find these reverses within a few years of issue it was extremely difficult to locate nice examples.  Herb Hicks had a few articles published in the coin papers but I missed the most important one since it was before I was a regular subscriber.  

 

I wager there will be a few more found over the years.   I believe mint personnel were not fastidious about changing the reverse dies at the beginning of the year.  If it was in good shape they either chose not to change it or overlooked changing it and there are several pretty big reverse die changes over the years.  I found a lot of the ones I had set aside and didn't find anything important but I still have a bunch of undisturbed safety deposit boxes I'm emptying for sale.

And here is the other picture

17 hours ago, cladking said:

Back in the day if you didn't find these reverses within a few years of issue it was extremely difficult to locate nice examples.  Herb Hicks had a few articles published in the coin papers but I missed the most important one since it was before I was a regular subscriber.  

 

I wager there will be a few more found over the years.   I believe mint personnel were not fastidious about changing the reverse dies at the beginning of the year.  If it was in good shape they either chose not to change it or overlooked changing it and there are several pretty big reverse die changes over the years.  I found a lot of the ones I had set aside and didn't find anything important but I still have a bunch of undisturbed safety deposit boxes I'm emptying for sale.

I really wish I knew how to find his other articles. When you say nice examples, do you mean high grade? I can't imagine that they'd get too messed up in circulation after just a few years. Cool, thank you for the information. Can I get you to look at these two images from PCGS CoinFacts and tell me if they look like your type D and RDV-012?

17 hours ago, cladking said:

Way cool!

How do you differentiate between the the 1980 RDV-11's and 12's?  

I have noticed a lower relief but I've seen no pick up points. Are there any other pick up points than you list above?   Is either tough?

 

 

I might add that in almost every single case that only one of the reverses shows up in mint sets and since almost all clads originated in mint sets this means the other reverses will be very scarce in high grade no matter the mintage.   The only exception that I know of is the 1981-P appears as the RDV-11 and type "d" in mint sets.  About 1 in 175 mint sets has the type "d".  

Yay, thank you!  I was hoping you'd get to see this. For some reason PCGS did not approve this post for their forum, so I didn't think you'd see it. As for the 1980, I have not personally looked at any yet to identify the RDV and am just trusting preliminary info from Gallego. He says it may be incorrect. I will be looking for all of these starting on my next quarter roll hunt. I appreciate the additional information!!

7 minutes ago, RWB said:

That's a lot of "RDVs" - good summary.

Thank you! :-)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RDV-003 = Type C = IIIo --> serif on N of UNUM
RDV-004 = Type D = IIIa1 --> inside edge of wing where it joins body is very weak
Type D (not RDV-004/IIIa1) --> huge gap between right side of N of UNUM and eagle's head
RDV-005 = Type E = IIIa2 --> incuse (sunken) outline of eagle's left wing
RDV-006 = Type F = IIIb --> master hub doubling inside top of Q in QUARTER
RDV-007 = Type M (or G) = IIIm --> rounded (not pointed) leaf to left of arrowpoints
RDV-008 = Type B (or H) = IIb --> leaf to left of arrowpoints extends above arrowpoints
Reverse of 1972 = IIIb/m (?) --> rotated doubling that shows up best in bottom lettering?
RDV-009 = IIIc
RDV-011 = IV = IVa --> N and I in UNITED merged on top serifs?
RDV-012 = IVb --> N and I in UNITED are merged at bottom and at top?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1965
RDV-003 (Scarce, ~5%)
RDV-004
RDV-005

1966
RDV-003 (Unconfirmed [?], scarce)
RDV-004
RDV-005

1967
RDV-003 (Rare, ~1%)
RDV-004
RDV-005
RDV-006 (Rare, <0.50%)

1968-(P)
RDV-004
RDV-005
RDV-006 (~50% [P+D])

1968-D
RDV-004
RDV-005
RDV-006 (~50% [P+D])

1969-D
RDV-004 (Very Scarce, 29.1% [RDV-004+RDV-005])
RDV-005 (29.1% [RDV-004+RDV-005])
RDV-006 (Rare [?], 58.1%)
RDV-007 (Scarce, 12%)
RDV-008 (Rare, 0.80%, ~1,000,000?)

1970
RDV-006 (93.6%)
RDV-007 (Rare, 6.3%)

1970-D (~2,300 working dies, average ~185,000 coins per working die)
RDV-006 (84.3%)
RDV-007 (11.2%)
RDV-008 (Rare, 0.10%, ~500,000)

1971 (average 170,000 coins per working die)

1971-D
RDV-006
RDV-008 (Rare, 0.03%, ~80,000, one working die?)

1972-D
RDV-006
RDV-008 (Rare, 0.012%, ~40,000, one working die?)

1973
Reverse of 1972 (Scarce)
RDV-009

1974
Reverse of 1972 (Rare?)
RDV-009

1974-D
Reverse of 1972
RDV-009

Quarters made in 1975 are dated either 1974 or 1976

1977
Type D (Scarce, one working die)
RDV-011

1977-D
Type D (Scarce)
RDV-011

1978
Type D (Tough)
RDV-011

1978-D
Type D (Scarce)
RDV-011

1979
Type D (Tough, 5%)
RDV-011

1979-D
Type D (2%)
RDV-011

1980-P
Type D
RDV-011
RDV-012

1980-D
Type D
RDV-011
RDV-012

1981-P
Type D
RDV-012

1981-D
Type D
RDV-012

1982-D
Type D
RDV-012

1983-P
Type D (~15%)
RDV-012

1983-D
Type D (~20%)
RDV-012

1984-P
Type D
RDV-012

1984-D
Type D
RDV-012

Sources:
http://www.heartlandcoinclub.com/Documents/Washington%20Quarters%20Reverse%20Design%20Varieties%20(RDV)%20From%20A%20to%20H,%20and%20Beyond%20Rev.%203-2019.pdf
http://www.heartlandcoinclub.com/Documents/Washington%20Quarters%20Reverse%20Design%20Varieties%20-%20Quick%20Reference%20Guide%20(Rev%2009-02-2019).pdf
http://conecaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/QuarterRDVHandout.pdf
https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/book/527681?fbclid=IwAR3pKZe55pVYKT5zRG1HdueHbZ-RG3xaxXqIjEoAvfCzFHnPG8Qy2G3cTYM (big thanks to Pete Apple!)
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/419710/clad-quarter-varieties/p1
http://www.varietyvista.com/09b%20WQ%20Vol%202/Reverse%20Design%20Varieties.htm
https://www.ngccoin.com/variety-plus/united-states/quarters/washington-quarters-1932-1998/?page=2
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/659907/kiss-1968-s-1969-d-type-b-and-3-other-reverse-varieties
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/627990/1970-d-quarter-varieties-reverses-includes-type-b-h-and-type-m-g
Thanks to Sam Petry!
Thanks to Jose Gallego!

(C) Shane Daniel

Nice struck through! If the quarter is UNC and there aren't many graded errors of this design w/mintmark, it might just be worth grading.

Edit: The "stitches" is just damage from the reeding of another quarter.

On 1/19/2021 at 10:23 AM, Just Bob said:

Welcome to both new posters.

Thank you!

I might be able to help. Have pictures?