Arrowhm

Good advice here. Density is not enough. Just tested the thing in the lab, definitely not silver. Mystery resolved. Probably a curiosity, definitely not a mirror brockage. Thanks to all who shared their thoughts. 🙂

In fairness I did ask for any and all ideas. Thanks for contributing 🙂

Not to mention my density measurements suggest pretty strongly that the material in this coin is not a lead alloy. I'm left with two potential options I think: One is that this is a decently well done counterfeit done by taking a flat filed quarter or sheet of silver alloy and pressing another SLQ into it. The edges are cleaned up to match the diameter of an SLQ, but lack the reeding. Wouldn't this expand/squash both the "master" SLQ and the impression? My experience with rolling mills or hydraulic presses in jewelry making is that soft designs (like a silver quarter) pressed onto metal of the same hardness leaves both pieces stretched and expanded. That's why the mint uses steel dies and a collar for the strike.....if someone mocked this up in a vice or press they're going to need a way to contain the fake struck planchet. The second is the unlikely possibility that this is a defaced SLQ Mirror brockage, with the positive impression from the die filed away to leave only the mirror impression. There are parallel scratches on the blank face that might support this but it seems like it would be hard to verify. Anything else I might add to the list of possibilities here?

I have a PhD in chemistry, not sorcery😂 So I just popped in the lab with 2x circulated SLQs and the piece of interest. Don't tell my boss 😂. Repeated the density measurements. The results are below: SLQ 1Mass 6.0509g, immersed mass 0.6019g, calculated density ~10.05 SLQ 2 Mass 5.992g, immersed mass 0.6012g, calculated density ~9.967. POI Mass 5.9241g, immersed mass 602.2g, calculated density ~9.837. So the mass is low, but not significantly lower than the mass of either SLQ (within 2%). The density is also lower, but again, only slightly. Definitely not lead (density is 11.29), and again within about 2% of the two SLQs. Measuring the immersed weight like this isn't easy - try tying a thread to a coin and holding it still in a cup of water some time😂 so I'm not as confident in the immersed weights. They never settled (the Mettler balance will beep when it's confident things aren't jumping around, and it only did this on the fixed masses), and jumped around+/- 30mg when suspending the coins by a thread. I think I'm pretty confident this isn't base metal. I'll check it chemically for silver content too. Of course, the metallic composition doesn't tell us anything about it's origins unfortunately. I agree the wear on the impression certainly points away from the theory that it's a test strike, unless the previous owners had a bad habit of really wearing on it. thanks again for all the input 🙂

Here are some better pics of the "flat" side:

The chances of this seem astronomically low to me. No idea if or how an NGC expert could even verify or justify this either. I'd be more inclined to lean towards the destruction of the raised obverse, at some point in the past. A child with a file can do a lot of damage. Looking under the scope there's virtually no descernable detail. Maybe some evidence of a raised edge.... And clear evidence of scratching along it. There may be some remaining detail but it's wayyyy too difficult for me to call. the highlights below almost look like stars but this could 100% be my own bias at play. Meanwhile the clear side continues to strike me as interesting. Here's some impressions from reeding above liberty's head: If the density checks out under more intense scrutiny in the lab, all it'll tell me is that this is coin silver. That doesn't seem like enough to prove its validity. What else could I possibly do to investigate? What would an authenticator look for? Perhaps there's just too much unknown to ultimately verify anything....

This was my first thought actually, before I learned about mirror brockages. But the metal is far too soft (and rough density reads are in the copper to silver range) for that to be the case. Not getting hopes up, but perhaps It's possible it's just really worn or poorly struck on one side. Either because it was treated roughly, or because something was up with the die it sat against. I'm going to look at it more thoroughly under the scope and see if I can find us better images of the "blank"side. Just bob, the design is definitely incuse and inverse.

Wow, not to mention you also wrote this book. Guess my post reached its intended audience. Good to know! Thanks to everyone who's weighed in thus far 🙂.

Fortunately I'm a chemist by day and I may be able to do that 😁. I'll try to get a better picture on that this week and perhaps I can update for the curious among us.... EDIT: I did this on my home digital scale on both g and gn settings. Weighed a real SLQ, then zeroed on a cup of water, suspended the SLQ by a thread, dunked and re-measured. Divided the first by the second. On g settings density was 10.2, on gn it was 10.3. my scale does not go below 0.1g or 1gn. The impression piece? 9.8 on g settings and 10.3 using gn. I'll have to repeat with the better MT balances we have in the lab next week, because they're accurate to 0.0001g, not 0.1. my assumption is I'm looking for a density around 10.3 given the 90% composition of silver (10.45) and 10% copper (8.96). If it's a home brewed version of the thing, I'm impressed. To me, It looked cleaner than a hacked vice would manage. I have some limited hobbyist level experience with silver jewelry making (casting, engraving, stone setting, stamping with a press etc.) and I don't think I could make this. If it's some Chinese knock off I think they'd be better suited making more of them 😂. If nothing else I'll try to get an answer on composition and density. I agree with the consensus but definitely interested in understanding more about it. For added context this passed to me through a friend - it was mixed in with an old (and otherwise legit) collection that belonged to their grandfather, and nothing in the box dates after the 1980s...

The missing reeded edge bugs me too, but I didn't know enough about the production process to understand where that gets added. Thanks for that! Guess I'll hold on to it as a fun novelty 😁

Thanks for the response! The weight is a good clue. All I did for comparison was weigh a circulated one: My assumption was that if the regular guy weighed 6g circulated then the worn brockage might be around the same. I'm not sure about it being cast though. I'm fairly experienced with jewelry making (and do some casting myself) and this lacks the characteristics of a cast piece. There's no sprew or evidence of its removal, and under the scope this looks pressed to me. I agree with the skepticism though.

Some additional pictures under the microscope: And a weigh in:

Hi all, Long time casual collector here, new to the forums because I've stumbled across an interesting piece and I'd like to hear thoughts from the community. It appears to be a full mirror brockage of a 1925 standing liberty quarter. The coin is a perfect mirror of the obverse design on one side, but (and this is the source of my confusion) completely blank on the other side. Typical examples of these mirror brockages seem to have been struck by a die on one side and a coin on the other, but this seems to have been struck on the opposite face with something flat (another blank?). It also lacks the reeded edge of a typical standing liberty quarter. Very interested in hearing your thoughts on authenticity. Is this something worth sending to be authenticated? It appears to be the same weight, diameter, and thickness of a standard period quarter, so everything seems potentially real to me, but I'm definitely not an expert. Edge comparison under the scope. EDIT Right hand is a circulated SLQ for comparison, left is the unknown coin: