2 variety discoveries for 1983 D Washington Quarter 0

[nccc]

Hello Everyone,

So I think I discovered 2 new varieties for the 1983 D Washington Quarter. I think that both coins are undiscovered varieties for this year.

The first one is what is typically considered a "Type 2" variety. It has thinner letters or typeface on the reverse of the coin. This typeface is very similar to the typeface of the proof design of that same year. The second one is a Doubled Die Reverse / DDR which I’m thinking is both an error and a variety.

I've heard of the use (or rather re-use) by the Mint of proof dies/hubs for business or circulating coins. It is known that the Mint has, in the past, re-used proof dies/hubs for business or circulating coins to "get more mileage" out of them. In particular, this occurred with the re-use of the reverse or "anvil" die/hub which supposedly undergoes more pressure/wear than the hammer die. The TYPE B Proof Reverse Washington Quarters of 1956-1964 is an example of use by the Mint of proof dies/hubs. This has also occurred on the 1972 Eisenhower Dollars which resulted in the "Type 2" variety.

In the photos below, I show the differences in these two typefaces or designs.

On the word "STATES", the differences in the design are noticeable in the letters "A", “T”, "E" and the "S". All 4 are thinner.

On the words "E PLURIBUS UNUM", the differences in the design are noticeable in all 3 words. All 3 are thinner. The difference is most noticeable in "PLURIB" and "UNU".

On the word "AMERICA", the letter "M" does not have serifs on its ‘feet’, the letter "E" is thinner and the letter "R" has a thinner right leg.

On the word "UNITED", the differences in the design are noticeable in the letters "N" and the "T". The "N" has a thinner diagonal line and has a higher ‘armpit’ while the "T" has a thinner trunk.

I’m guessing that a proof working anvil hub was re-used to create business strike working dies?
 

 

 

 

 

[nccc]

On the second coin, I’m referring to it as a "Type 2 over Type 1" DDR variety.

The second set of photos below show the doubling on the actual coin.

On the word "STATES", the doubling is most noticeable in the letters "A", "E" and the "S" while both “T”s have minor doubling which is seen on both sides of the trunk.

On the words " E PLURIBUS UNUM", the doubling is most noticeable in the letter “P” and the letter "L".

On the word "AMERICA", the doubling is most noticeable in the letters "M", "E" and the "R".

On the word "UNITED", the doubling is most noticeable in the letter "N" and the letter “U”.

And on the word "QUARTER" at the bottom, the  letter "A" has a double peak.

There is a noticeable amount of what looks to be die wear, especially below the "E" in "AMERICA" and the “U” in "UNITED". This could be a hint as to why a proof working hub was used.

On this DDR, my theory is that since this doubling has 2 different designs, the same proof working anvil hub used to create the "Type 2" variety was used on a second pressing on a working die that already had the "Type 1" design on it, probably because the "Type 1" hub was worn out and causing the edges of these letters to be ragged.

I certainly would like to hear your theories on what possibly happened that caused these 2 varieties.

Regards

 

 

 

 

[Sandon]

  Welcome to the NGC chat board.

   You have done a great deal of work and are certainly more knowledgeable than most first-time posters on these forums.  However, I am not convinced you have discovered that more than one style of reverse exists for 1983-D quarters. Everything in your close-up photos is explainable by (1) die deterioration, which can cause lettering on dies to spread out and develop ghostly secondary images and (2) strike or machine doubling, which causes clear but "shelf-like" secondary images that are usually in lower relief than the primary impression.  I have seen many 1983-D quarters that were struck from well-worn dies showing substantial signs of deterioration.

   Please post clear, cropped photos of the entire obverse and reverse of each of the coins that you used for the close-ups in your previous posts.  I expect that if different master dies were used, there would be a number of additional differences in the design details. In the case of "Type A and B" Washington quarters, while the amount of space between the "E" and "S" of "STATES" is a diagnostic for the varieties, the entire "Type B" reverse appears to be in higher relief and differs from the "Type A" reverse in a number of other details.

   Regarding the photo that you entitled "1983 D Washington quarter proof strike", I assume that you mean a circulation strike 1983-D quarter that you believe was struck from a reverse die intended for use to strike proofs, not a 1983-D branch mint proof. 

   

Edited March 22, 2023 by Sandon

[J P M]

On 3/21/2023 at 8:20 PM, Sandon said:

  Welcome to the NGC chat board.

   You have done a great deal of work and are certainly more knowledgeable than most first-time posters on these forums.  However, I am not convinced you have discovered that more than one style of reverse exists for 1983-D quarters. Everything in your close-up photos is explainable by (1) die deterioration, which can cause lettering on dies to spread out and develop ghostly secondary images and (2) strike or machine doubling, which causes clear but "shelf-like" secondary images that are usually in lower relief than the primary impression.  I have seen many 1983-D quarters that were struck from well-worn dies showing substantial signs of deterioration.

   Please post clear, cropped photos of the entire obverse and reverse of each of the coins that you used for the close-ups in your previous posts.  I expect that if different master dies were used, there would be a number of additional differences in the design details. In the case of "Type A and B" Washington quarters, while the amount of space between the "E" and "S" of "STATES" is a diagnostic for the varieties, the entire "Type B" reverse appears to be in higher relief and differs from the "Type A" reverse in a number of other details.

   Regarding the photo that you entitled "1983 D Washington quarter proof strike", I assume that you mean a circulation strike 1983-D quarter that you believe was struck from a reverse die intended for use to strike proofs, not a 1983-D branch mint proof. 

   

Welcome nccc.....I agree with Sandon very worn die ,I also noted you are saying type 2 over type 1 if there was such a thing a Denver coin would not have a double strike or press. The A you have outlined looks more like a scratch than a double serif.  

[cladking]

Very impressive!

I've certainly never seen an example of the coin you call type 2/ type 1.  Do you know what part of the country it originated?  

I'd be interested in pictures of the "Q" of the two types.  

 

Some strange things seemed to go on with reverses of quarters between 1977 and 1984 (incl).  

Edited March 22, 2023 by cladking

[nccc]

cladking, here are photos of the "Q" on both the Type 1 and Type 2. While cropping these photos, I noticed differences in the distance between the leaves to the "Q" and the the "U" and circled these.

 

[nccc]

Sandon & J P M:

The "Type 2" variety has thinner letters and a sharper strike. How does die deterioration or machine doubling cause that?

And on the "Type 2 over Type 1" DDR variety - how does die deterioration cause this type of doubling? Look how sharp the lines are on the thinner letters: the "A" in "STATES", the “P” in "PLURIBUS", and the "A" in "QUARTER".

And how do you get a double peak from die deterioration or machine doubling?

I know what machine doubling is. It has a step-like or shelf-like look to it. The edge is sharp, not rounded. The doubling is thin, usually less than a millimeter. And the doubling occurs on one side of the design – this is due to the movement of the planchet in relation to the die during the pressing.

Look at the thickness of the doubling on this. The edges are rounded. And look at the direction of the change in the design, especially inside the "A" in "STATES" and around the bottom of the legs in the "R" in "AMERICA".

Here are some close-ups. The doubling is very prominent.


 

[nccc]

with arrows showing direction of change in design for "A" and "P":

 

[nccc]

arrows showing direction of change in design for "R" in AMERICA:

[nccc]

and arrows showing direction of change in design for "A" in QUARTER:

 

 

[nccc]

and an overall picture/map of the positioning of the diagnostics & direction of change in design:

The movement of the die or the coin during the pressing would NOT have caused this.

 

[nccc]

On 3/21/2023 at 7:12 PM, J P M said:

Welcome nccc.....I agree with Sandon very worn die ,I also noted you are saying type 2 over type 1 if there was such a thing a Denver coin would not have a double strike or press. The A you have outlined looks more like a scratch than a double serif.  

The Mint did double-squeeze hubbing up until 1985 or 1986. Here is an article by Ken Potter posted on the CONECA website:

https://conecaonline.org/so-just-when-did-single-squeeze-hubbing-begin/

As for serifs, the "A" does not have a serif at the top, that's why I said double peak. Here's what a serif and non-serif "A" look like:

You seem to be an expert, especially with over 2400 posts. Can you describe your expertise on Washington Quarters and how many modern US coins have you attributed?
 

 

[nccc]

Sandon:

That photo that titled "Proof strike" is a 1983 proof Washington quarter. I posted it to show what the proof design was for that year. You can tell they have shiny & white surfaces. Here they are, just to make sure we're on the same page:

 

 

Edited March 23, 2023 by nccc

[Sandon]

    

On 3/21/2023 at 8:20 PM, Sandon said:

 Please post clear, cropped photos of the entire obverse and reverse of each of the coins that you used for the close-ups in your previous posts. 

   I respectfully reiterate this request.  It's difficult to assess the forest when one has only been shown a few of the trees.  While close-ups have value, we need to see the whole coin and should be able to detect the different varieties you claim exist for 1983-D quarters from such photos.  (An NGC administrator made it clear in a post just yesterday that NGC generally won't recognize die varieties that can't be detected under 5x magnification.)  Posting clear, cropped photos of each side of a coin that is pertinent to your topic is also standard procedure for participants in these forums, as set forth in the following topic:

   Why do you continue to label a 1983-S proof quarter reverse that you are using for comparison purposes as a "1983-D Washington quarter Type 1 proof strike"? This is rather confusing.  

   Your photos labelled "DDR" may in fact depict a doubled die reverse, but that is not necessarily the result of the use of hubs of two different varieties. Like most doubled dies, the doubling may have resulted from a single hub having moved between blows, which, as you point out, was still possible in 1983.  Have you checked varietyvista.com and/or similar sites to determine whether anyone has already listed such a doubled die reverse or different reverse varieties for 1983-D quarters before?

   You may have indeed found one or more significant new varieties, but so far I haven't seen enough to be convinced of that. Ultimately, of course, you will have to submit the actual coins to experts for inspection. (I'm just a serious collector of U.S. coins with 52 years of experience, that's all.)

[cladking]

I can't help much here as I'm not sure what is going on.  It could be one "bad" or possibly even misidentified photo (if that's possible).  

Your "type 2" appears to have all the characteristics of what I call the "small motto" or "type d reverse" except for the Pick Up Point.  This is the distance between the left side of the "N' in "UNUM and the eagle's head.  It should be much greater in your "type 2" if this is the same variety.  Type 2 accounts for only about 20% of mintage and appears in only a single one of the different types of mint sets for that year.  It is also scarce in BU rolls.  This latter is because BU rolls in those days were only sold from a few locations including western PA and Green Castle, IN where these coins were not released. 

I've done various things to track these down and to get expert opinion but experts suggest they are merely caused by hubbing and hence of no interest.   

If your coin is the type d then it certainly lends credence to the idea that it really is a different hub or type and if the type 2 over 1 is real then it virtually proves it.  

 

How about a more distant shot of the entire reverse to highlight the "N" in "UNUM"? 

The "type d" was struck on all quarters from 1977 to 1984 (except '82-P) and get increasingly common each year. 

  

Edited March 26, 2023 by cladking

[cladking]

Oh,  the "Q" in "QUARTER" has a curved cross on the bottom on type 1 and curved on 2.  

[cladking]

If this is the same (it must be) then you'll also find that the type 2 often comes with a PL reverse.  I've toyed with various hypotheses over the years like type 2's were made with proof dies or at West Point but the facts don't support any I've come up with.  

This could get very interesting if the experts start paying attention.  There are millions and millions of the various dates still in circulation and a few are still in nice shape.  

[cladking]

On 3/22/2023 at 5:57 PM, Sandon said:

    

   I respectfully reiterate this request.  It's difficult to assess the forest when one has only been shown a few of the trees.  While close-ups have value, we need to see the whole coin and should be able to detect the different varieties you claim exist for 1983-D quarters from such photos.  (An NGC administrator made it clear in a post just yesterday that NGC generally won't recognize die varieties that can't be detected under 5x magnification.)  Posting clear, cropped photos of each side of a coin that is pertinent to your topic is also standard procedure for participants in these forums, as set forth in the following topic:

If this is really a variety then it shows up from a few feet away.   

I think of it as a "type" because the entire reverse is affected.  Curiously they get more different each year they were minted.  The 1977 is so subtle you need strong magnification of a lightly worn coin to see it.  

[J P M]

On 3/22/2023 at 5:54 PM, nccc said:

The Mint did double-squeeze hubbing up until 1985 or 1986. Here is an article by Ken Potter posted on the CONECA website:

https://conecaonline.org/so-just-when-did-single-squeeze-hubbing-begin/

As for serifs, the "A" does not have a serif at the top, that's why I said double peak. Here's what a serif and non-serif "A" look like:

You seem to be an expert, especially with over 2400 posts. Can you describe your expertise on Washington Quarters and how many modern US coins have you attributed?
 

 

  LoL ...No not a expert just a collector like most of the members here. When I said (double serif) it refers to a term used for the doubling of a device that I do not see on the ( A  ) you posted. It looks more like damage than doubling.  I also think the type 1 you have posted is of a coin from a newer die and your type 2 is from a older die.. Or vice versa .and the proof is a proof with a S not a D  .Just my thoughts.     

Edited March 23, 2023 by J P M

[cladking]

On 3/22/2023 at 4:54 PM, nccc said:

The Mint did double-squeeze hubbing up until 1985 or 1986. Here is an article by Ken Potter posted on the CONECA website:

https://conecaonline.org/so-just-when-did-single-squeeze-hubbing-begin/

As for serifs, the "A" does not have a serif at the top, that's why I said double peak. Here's what a serif and non-serif "A" look like:

You seem to be an expert, especially with over 2400 posts. Can you describe your expertise on Washington Quarters and how many modern US coins have you attributed?
 

 

Thank you for this link.  It leads to a new workable hypothesis about the nature and origin of the "type 2'.  

Perhaps the mint was experimenting with single squeeze as early as 1977.  That year they used a single die at both Philly and Denver to test it but were unhappy with the results so they changed the design slightly and used a couple of dies in 1978.  This worked much better so they further modified the design and lowered the relief for the 1979 and used more than a dozen dies.  After this the design adjustments were more minor but did occur in each subsequent year through 1984 with more and more coins being struck with the single squeeze design.  In 1985 there was only a single reverse and it was a hybrid of the type 1 and type 2.  This reverse continued to be modified slightly but was probably single squeeze and  there was a single reverse for every Washington quarter after 1984.  

If this is the case then it is apparent that the type 2 really is an entirely different reverse that appears on the scarce '82 and '83 quarters as well as the other '77 to '84 issues.  

Some of these are remarkably rare with the rarest being the 1977.  While not of especial interest because it is so subtle there were none saved in the tiny number of rolls that were set aside and it does not appear in the mint set.  The entire mintage of ~600,000 went into circulation where only ~375,000 survive with most in F or lower condition and  95% of them culls. 

 

Believe it or not there were probably fewer than 10 bags of quarters set aside each year for each mint.    I've been able to spot check most of these and have found none.  Except for the 1984 they are all more difficult in BU than pure chance would suggest. I've found only three of the '77-P with the finest being AU- and the others XF and VG+.  This would suggest they may have been released near Chicago.  I've never understood the apathy displayed toward these coins and clad quarters in general.  

Edited March 23, 2023 by cladking

[nccc]

On 3/22/2023 at 4:57 PM, Sandon said:

    

Why do you continue to label a 1983-S proof quarter reverse that you are using for comparison purposes as a "1983-D Washington quarter Type 1 proof strike"? This is rather confusing.  

 

Sandon & J P M:

Thanks for pointing this out. This is certainly a mistake on my part. I was in a hurry doing copy/pastes on the title of these images and overlooked that.

 

 

 

 

 

[nccc]

On 3/22/2023 at 4:57 PM, Sandon said:

    

   I respectfully reiterate this request.  It's difficult to assess the forest when one has only been shown a few of the trees.  While close-ups have value, we need to see the whole coin and should be able to detect the different varieties you claim exist for 1983-D quarters from such photos.  (An NGC administrator made it clear in a post just yesterday that NGC generally won't recognize die varieties that can't be detected under 5x magnification.)  Posting clear, cropped photos of each side of a coin that is pertinent to your topic is also standard procedure for participants in these forums, as set forth in the following topic:

 

Sandon & cladking:

I can give you guys something even better but I won’t be able to do it right now as I’ll be busy for the next 2 days and I have some tidying up to do before I post them.
 

[nccc]

I’d like to get these coins recognized & attributed so I can send them to NGC to get graded & holdered.

Is there anyone here - coin expert, variety attributer, etc – who can officially review & attribute these coins?
 

[nccc]

On 3/22/2023 at 4:57 PM, Sandon said:

Have you checked varietyvista.com and/or similar sites to determine whether anyone has already listed such a doubled die reverse or different reverse varieties for 1983-D quarters before?

 

I have checked both varietyvista.com and doubleddie.com and didn’t find these two.

[nccc]

A couple of you asked where I got these coins. I found the "Type 2" while coin roll hunting. I don’t think where I found it has any bearing as it’s been 40 years and this coin could have been to all states and back.

The  "Type 2 over Type 1" DDR however, I bought online from a seller in Massachusetts. I actually bought 2 and they both have the "Type 2 over Type 1" DDR on them. They both are BU and if they came from a BU roll it could have been acquired in the area. But then again, this was 40 years ago, so who knows where these coins have been.
 

[J P M]

It would be nice to see the whole 1983 D coin both obverse and reverse if posable. I have a feeling it will show that it has Die Deterioration. I am still a bit confused on how that works of the strike of a type 2 over a type 1 coin ? Was the coin labeled that way on the sale?

[cladking]

On 3/23/2023 at 1:44 PM, nccc said:

I’d like to get these coins recognized & attributed so I can send them to NGC to get graded & holdered.

Is there anyone here - coin expert, variety attributer, etc – who can officially review & attribute these coins?
 

Your task here is much larger than you might realize.  Whether they are caused by single squeeze or any other means they look like the same hub to the experts.  I don't understand why but this new theory might just lend a little explanation for why it appears to be the same hub.  If I'm right then both hubs, the one for single squeeze and for double squeeze came from the same master hub/ die.   These single squeeze working hubs underwent slight modification each year. Each change was implied by the previous results so each difference (each pick up point) was where the biggest changes occurred.  The "N" walked away from "UNUM" and the relief was lowered each year to accommodate single squeeze.

Few of the experts have held them in hand.  Probably a lot fewer (none?) have seen an example of all of them and your type 2/ type 1 is new to me.  It's a pretty dramatic display of these differences.  All of them except the '82-D and '83-D are going to be highly elusive in Unc and experts want to see uncirculated examples.   Even a coin as common as the '80-D (5% of mintage) is tough in Unc because almost all examples come from mint sets.  I, myself, didn't discover these until 1979 when the changes started becoming dramatic and mintages soar.  

I do believe that you can probably do this.   I tried for a long time but I've only sent a few coins and fewer Uncs.  The consensus calls them "mere hubbing varieties" which appears inconsistent with the evidence to me but then you have better evidence.  I suppose they really are "mere hubbing varieties" in the sense that some are made by dies intended for single squeeze (type 2) and the others were intended for double squeeze (type 1).  I'll watch for type 1's inadvertently single squeezed.  This will be hard to detect unless it's very high grade.  This is far more likely to exist among the later dates due to so many dies more being type 2.  

Edited March 24, 2023 by cladking

[cladking]

There is a fairly scarce Denver cent in the 1996 mint set that has much smaller, thinner lettering farther from the rim on the reverse.  These, too, are usually very PL.  I was fooled for some time into believing it was a different hub but eventually I understood it was caused by excessive die polishing.  While I still like the coin I certainly understand why few collectors care about it.  It is a "die variety" only in the sense that it affected only a single die for the '96 mint sets.  There may be others in circulation from other dies.  I have seen this effect on other dates in circulation.  

I'm well aware that I might be wrong about the quarter reverses as well. They are certainly interesting but in coin collecting it's not so much appearances as causations.  By the same token though some experts dismiss the WI Denver quarters as mere "die damage".  Despite all the facts that show these were intentional they are sometimes dismissed. So even expert opinion isn't necessarily the final word.  

Hang in there.  Best of luck.  

[cladking]

On 3/23/2023 at 2:03 PM, nccc said:

A couple of you asked where I got these coins. I found the "Type 2" while coin roll hunting. I don’t think where I found it has any bearing as it’s been 40 years and this coin could have been to all states and back.

As a general rule there is a high probability that an AU or better quarter is within 100 miles of where it was released and within 200 miles of the local FED district.  This was only a little less true in 1983.  The oldest quarters are only now approaching "random" and there are some areas partly cut off from as much mixing.  

On 3/23/2023 at 2:03 PM, nccc said:

The  "Type 2 over Type 1" DDR however, I bought online from a seller in Massachusetts. I actually bought 2 and they both have the "Type 2 over Type 1" DDR on them. They both are BU and if they came from a BU roll it could have been acquired in the area. But then again, this was 40 years ago, so who knows where these coins have been.

It's likely he purchased the rolls from  a seller in western or central US.  My best guess would be Julian Jarvis but there are several other likely candidates.  

 

Thanks for the info. 

[RWB]

On 3/23/2023 at 3:03 PM, nccc said:

A couple of you asked where I got these coins. I found the "Type 2" while coin roll hunting. I don’t think where I found it has any bearing as it’s been 40 years and this coin could have been to all states and back.

The  "Type 2 over Type 1" DDR however, I bought online from a seller in Massachusetts. I actually bought 2 and they both have the "Type 2 over Type 1" DDR on them. They both are BU and if they came from a BU roll it could have been acquired in the area. But then again, this was 40 years ago, so who knows where these coins have been.
 

Your first step is to prepare a carefully written, clear, illustrated article and submit it for publication to one of the major hobby publications. After that you'll have to follow the trail of responses, possibly give several public presentations, and see if any of the variety websites decide what you see is significant for a variety listing.

Edited March 24, 2023 by RWB