2 variety discoveries for 1983 D Washington Quarter 0

[J P M]

On 3/24/2023 at 3:28 PM, RWB said:

I actually bought 2 and they both have the "Type 2 over Type 1" DDR on them. They both are BU

 I am not going to say any more until I see the whole coin if it is BU.

[RWB]

 

On 3/24/2023 at 3:28 PM, RWB said:

I actually bought 2 and they both have the "Type 2 over Type 1" DDR on them. They both are BU

JPM:  I am not going to say any more until I see the whole coin if it is BU.

There's a bug someplace -- I did not write the quoted section.

 

[J P M]

On 3/24/2023 at 7:29 PM, RWB said:

 

JPM:  I am not going to say any more until I see the whole coin if it is BU.

There's a bug someplace -- I did not write the quoted section.

 

Wow this is a strange thread .. LoL  I know you did not say that RWB. When I copied it as a quote off your last post it must have not referred to the OP's original quote. 

Edited March 25, 2023 by J P M

[physics-fan3.14]

What I'm seeing on the Type I vs Type 2 can all be explained by regular die wear, from a late die state. 

And, while I agree that the so-called DDR looks weird... it looks a lot like "die deterioration doubling".... again, from a late die state. 

If you want recognition on this one, it will have to be submitted to several of the leading variety attributers. You should start with CONECA. Instructions can be found here: https://conecaonline.org/attribution-services/

If Mike Ellis agrees that you've got something good, then you've got something good. 

It's not unheard of to find new varieties - I myself am listed as discoverer for a Franklin DDR. 

Edited March 25, 2023 by physics-fan3.14

[cladking]

On 3/25/2023 at 12:19 PM, physics-fan3.14 said:

What I'm seeing on the Type I vs Type 2 can all be explained by regular die wear, from a late die state. 

And, while I agree that the so-called DDR looks weird... it looks a lot like "die deterioration doubling".... again, from a late die state. 

If you want recognition on this one, it will have to be submitted to several of the leading variety attributers. You should start with CONECA. Instructions can be found here: https://conecaonline.org/attribution-services/

If Mike Ellis agrees that you've got something good, then you've got something good. 

It's not unheard of to find new varieties - I myself am listed as discoverer for a Franklin DDR. 

I'm not convinced yet the the DDR is legitimate but I've long believed that the difference between the type 1 and type 2 is.   They appear to be two distinct designs.  

One thing that makes the type 2 over type 1 believable to me is that it appears the type 2 (single squeeze design) was lightly imparted so all the PUP's appear more doubled.   Perhaps the technician saw the light design and mistakenly assumed it must be the type 1 so squeezed another time.  I'll reserve judgment on this coin for expert opinion or seeing it in hand.   

[physics-fan3.14]

On 3/25/2023 at 4:03 PM, cladking said:

I'm not convinced yet the the DDR is legitimate but I've long believed that the difference between the type 1 and type 2 is.   They appear to be two distinct designs.  

One thing that makes the type 2 over type 1 believable to me is that it appears the type 2 (single squeeze design) was lightly imparted so all the PUP's appear more doubled.   Perhaps the technician saw the light design and mistakenly assumed it must be the type 1 so squeezed another time.  I'll reserve judgment on this coin for expert opinion or seeing it in hand.   

I'm just not seeing anything between the two so-called types that can't be explained by hubbing pressure and die wear. There is no variation in the shape of letters, distances between them, or any distinct variation. Yes, one is thicker - but more pressure on the hub will do that, and then a much later die state will also lead to thicker elements (as shown on the pictures in the OP).

And, the single squeeze process wasn't even starting to be developed until 1985. It didn't receive widespread use until the mid-90s. The OP is claiming this is a 1983D (although, he must be confused because he's labeled a proof coin as 83D as well). 

[J P M]

On 3/25/2023 at 8:57 PM, physics-fan3.14 said:

I'm just not seeing anything between the two so-called types that can't be explained by hubbing pressure and die wear. There is no variation in the shape of letters, distances between them, or any distinct variation. Yes, one is thicker - but more pressure on the hub will do that, and then a much later die state will also lead to thicker elements (as shown on the pictures in the OP).

And, the single squeeze process wasn't even starting to be developed until 1985. It didn't receive widespread use until the mid-90s. The OP is claiming this is a 1983D (although, he must be confused because he's labeled a proof coin as 83D as well). 

Thanks for your input physics-fan3.14. I think a lot of people try to push a topic with a lot of words to make there point seam worthy. We had a guy that work months here and ATS on trying to convince the members his flowing hair sent was real when it was not. I think it is a great effort to try and find a new variety but for this coin I think it is a worn out die that we are seeing the results of.  

[cladking]

On 3/25/2023 at 7:57 PM, physics-fan3.14 said:

I'm just not seeing anything between the two so-called types that can't be explained by hubbing pressure and die wear. There is no variation in the shape of letters, distances between them, or any distinct variation. Yes, one is thicker - but more pressure on the hub will do that, and then a much later die state will also lead to thicker elements (as shown on the pictures in the OP).

And, the single squeeze process wasn't even starting to be developed until 1985. It didn't receive widespread use until the mid-90s. The OP is claiming this is a 1983D (although, he must be confused because he's labeled a proof coin as 83D as well). 

The cross on the "Q" looks shorter and less curved on the type 2.  The right side of the "N" in "UNUM" is much farther away from the eagle's head.  

Most of the lettering is thinner and the relief is much lower.  If this could be explained by the life of a single die I'd certainly agree but there are numerous dies. Each "type 2"  appears to have gone into production in about the same condition and there are no hybrids as you'd expect if die polishing were the explanation.   

 

Most of the differences were still subtle even by 1984 but the lower relief is hardly subtle.  The '77 and '78 lower relief was more more subtle.  It was '79 before the relief dropped in earnest. 

[cladking]

On 3/26/2023 at 9:16 AM, cladking said:

 

  It was '79 before the relief dropped in earnest. 

I didn't even bother to report it at first because I was sure someone else would note the '79.  Curiously, initially I had believed they converted to the type 2 because that was all I saw here.  Much of the mintage of the Philly was released near Chicago. But then they started disappearing and less than 5% were "type 2". 

[cladking]

For what it's worth my working theory for over fifteen years now has been that these resulted from inadvertently being hubbed only a single time.  This never seemed to be consistent with the shape of the "Q" nor the right side of the "N" but experts kept telling me it was a simple hubbing difference and I still lack lack the expertise to know.  It they are correct that its simple hubbing then logic would seem to dictate the lower relief on ever single one means they were hubbed only once.   

Now I can't help but wonder if they kept two galvanos which both changed every year; one for double squeeze and one for intentional single squeeze.  These both changed each year but the single squeeze one changed more as the experiment progressed.  Each year they learned more and had more information about die wear until they standardized with a single design in 1985 that was a hybrid of the two designs.  This 1985 design was single squeeze.  

[RWB]

How about providing some empirical measurements from a surface profilometer -- similar to the images I posted about a year ago.

Edited March 27, 2023 by RWB

[cladking]

On 3/27/2023 at 3:30 PM, RWB said:

How about providing some empirical measurements from a surface profilometer -- similar to the images I posted about a year ago.

Unless I can do it with a slide rule I probably can't do it.  I became technologically illiterate on the day Bill Gates took over.  

Nccc probably can.  He certainly appears competent and technologically literate.  

[nccc]

Sandon & cladking:

Here are the full coin photos you requested:

I sent both these coins to PCGS to get graded and they both came back as genuine and in PCGS Gold Shield holders, which means they have TrueViews. PCGS did not attribute them as varieties.

These PCGS TrueViews are the best whole coin photos I can provide, better than what I can do with my smartphone and jeweler’s loupe. That said, these TrueViews aren’t perfect and a professional photographer can produce better photos with masterful light diffusion and axial photography.

And you can download high quality images from the PCGS, much larger than what can be uploaded here on the forum. I’d say the best one to get is the largest file at around 37 MB as it probably has the best image quality.

Here are the links:

Type 2 (AU55)
https://www.pcgs.com/cert/46598617
https://images.pcgs.com/trueview/45399707

Type 2 Over Type 1 DDR (MS64)
https://www.pcgs.com/cert/46598616
https://images.pcgs.com/trueview/45399708
 

[nccc]

Die Deterioration/Wear:

Why is this the go-to explanation? The logic I’m hearing is this:

There is die deterioration/wear, therefore this coin cannot have doubling.

The fact is all business strike quarters I've seen - including ones in Unc Mint Sets - have die deterioration/wear.

Die deterioration/wear does not preclude or exclude a coin from having doubling.
 

[nccc]

cladking:

Here is a closeup of "AMERICA" on the Type 2. It certainly looks lower relief.
 

[nccc]

J P M:

I think the industry term that I’ve seen is “notching” and the diagnostic is called a “notch” and some notches are double serifs while others are not. My ‘double peak’ is a notch but it is not a double serif.

 

[nccc]

Die Deterioration/Wear part 2:

To all of you who think the diagnostics on either coin is just ‘die wear’, here are a bunch of well known varieties with tiny & minute diagnostics. Yet, experts and the coin collecting community have accepted them. I’m not even going to include RPMs and VAMs which are even smaller.

Here’s some of them:

This is a diagnostic for the 1964 Kennedy Half Accented Hair. It’s a missing serif on the ‘I’ in ‘LIBERTY’ – the one on the other side is still there. On the reverse of the coin, the rays by the stars are weaker. These diagnostics are tiny & minute. Based on your criteria, they would just be ‘die wear’.


https://www.usacoinbook.com/coins/2878/half-dollars/kennedy/1964-P/heavily-accented-hair/

Second is the 1972 Eisenhower Dollar Type 2 - High Relief Reverse Struck with Proof Die. Its diagnostic is that it has a “rounder earth” and “the islands appear to lump into one very large island or indentation where the islands would normally appear on the coin” as shown in the image example below. That’s the only diagnostic. Again, these diagnostics are tiny & minute. Based on your criteria, they would just be ‘die wear’.

https://www.usacoinbook.com/coins/3333/dollars/eisenhower/1972-P/type-2-high-relief-reverse-struck-with-proof-die/

Third is the 1992 Close AM Lincoln Cent. These are the diagnostics. One is the slightly wider gap between the ‘A’ and the ‘M’. The other is the slightly wider gap between Monticello and the initials ‘FG’ and the tiny serif on the ‘G’. Again, these diagnostics are tiny & minute.

All these are examples of very tiny & minute diagnostics but apparently, these are real varieties that experts and coin collectors recognize and pay for.

Would you say that these variety examples are just ‘die wear’?
 

 

[nccc]

physics-fan:

Do you truly think the doubling on the "Type 2 over Type 1" DDR is just hubbing pressure or die wear? Die wear is jagged & random. It does not form straight, sharply defined, or crisp lines that form into a doubled outline of a letter.

Can you or someone show me die wear that looks like this:


Look how crisp the lines are on the thinner “P” on top of the thicker one.

And on the 'R' in AMERICA, the doubled outline follows exactly the outline of the legs of the 'R'. What is die wear are the striations below the legs.


Look at how much distance there is in the gap between the thin and the thick/doubled outline of the legs (which is clearly defined). Did hubbing pressure or die wear really cause that? If so, why the wide gap in the doubling?

[nccc]

On 3/23/2023 at 9:58 AM, cladking said:

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.  

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this theory or claim you have. So, thin letters, single squeeze & low relief = Type 2 and thick letters, double squeeze & high relief = Type1? And this goes all the way back to 1977?

[nccc]

On 3/24/2023 at 12:55 PM, cladking said:

Your task here is much larger than you might realize.

Oh shoot, pressure

"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."

Have you looked at the PCGS TrueViews for these years?

[cladking]

On 3/27/2023 at 4:55 PM, nccc said:

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this theory or claim you have. So, thin letters, single squeeze & low relief = Type 2 and thick letters, double squeeze & high relief = Type1? And this goes all the way back to 1977?

Some great posts here and they will take me some time to digest.  

But, yes, thanks largely to your input my new working theory is that the mint began experimenting with single squeeze all the way back in 1977.  This explains all the evidence of which I am aware and is not inconsistent with what the mint reported in the '85/'86 mint report.  Why else would they use more and more "different dies" each year and each year the differences between regular dies and different dies grew?   

 

These reverses are simply experiments the mint performed to learn how to implement single squeeze.  By 1985 all quarter reverses were a hybrid of the different reverses and they were all single squeeze.  It was likely several more years before all mint dies were single squeeze resulting in the confusion over when it began.  The correct answer appears to be it started in 1977 with a single quarter reverse die.  

[nccc]

On 3/27/2023 at 2:30 PM, RWB said:

How about providing some empirical measurements from a surface profilometer -- similar to the images I posted about a year ago.

I'm new here and haven't seen those images. However, I've thought of scanning the surfaces of both coins using some laser device that captures surface measurements/dimensions at a micro or nano level, then creates a 3D model that I can view on my computer. I don't have such a device but if I have time, I have thought of going to the local college/Uni and checking. I've emailed them but have gotten no response. These 3D models with their micro or nano measurements can help with all these theories we have.

[cladking]

On 3/27/2023 at 5:01 PM, nccc said:

Have you looked at the PCGS TrueViews for these years?

Not specifically, but I always check reverses on this date and rarely see a type 2 in BU.   

Since all of these were made for circulation most of them circulated.  This was one date that Julian Jarvis had with the type 2 and I was able to pick up a few from this source.  But it was one or two at a t9ime and I couldn't afford to pay shipping and handling along with the premium for the roll so I got very few.  All the ones I've seen are typical quality for the date except for some PL reverses so I wouldn't expect many to have been graded.  The date comes nice but usually tops out at MS-65 which is far out of the money.  There may be some caches of these that will be graded if a variety is recognized but I'd be surprised if that's even 100 coins.  I have fewer than a dozen I'm "sure" as well as a couple dozen nice AU's.   

 

An individual might have opened a bag of quarters back in the days and seen hundreds of these PL reverses and set them aside.  So few people paid any attention to clads that the individual is highly hypothetical.  The mintage is so high that it may well have happened though.  If it did happen the average grade will probably be MS-63/64.  

[cladking]

On 3/27/2023 at 5:01 PM, nccc said:

Oh shoot, pressure

"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."

Have you looked at the PCGS TrueViews for these years?

The '82-D, '83-P, and '83-D are all very "common" because none come from regular mint sets and not even souvenir sets contained them.  So for the main part their numbers are approximately 25% of 40- 60,000.  or 10 to 15,000 of each.  The '84 P and D are tougher.  The '81-D has 10,000 surviving in mint sets but the '81-P is tough.  The '80's are both tough, and the '79's even tougher.  Forget the '77 and '78 and try to find a circ.  The '78-D appears but I don't know who saved it.  A lot of these rolls from this era no longer survive because of tarnish.  I doubt there will be even a few dozen of the "common" '78-D in Unc.  

You seem like the kind of person who thrives under pressure.  I don't think you'd be here otherwise and not with an introductory post like yours.  

 

Best of luck.  It would be neat if these are actual varieties and even neater if they are experiments.  

Edited March 27, 2023 by cladking

[RWB]

On 3/27/2023 at 6:09 PM, nccc said:

I'm new here and haven't seen those images. However, I've thought of scanning the surfaces of both coins using some laser device that captures surface measurements/dimensions at a micro or nano level, then creates a 3D model that I can view on my computer. I don't have such a device but if I have time, I have thought of going to the local college/Uni and checking. I've emailed them but have gotten no response. These 3D models with their micro or nano measurements can help with all these theories we have.

Here's a link to the post I mentioned.

 

Edited March 27, 2023 by RWB

[physics-fan3.14]

On 3/26/2023 at 10:16 AM, cladking said:

The cross on the "Q" looks shorter and less curved on the type 2.  The right side of the "N" in "UNUM" is much farther away from the eagle's head.  

Most of the lettering is thinner and the relief is much lower.  If this could be explained by the life of a single die I'd certainly agree but there are numerous dies. Each "type 2"  appears to have gone into production in about the same condition and there are no hybrids as you'd expect if die polishing were the explanation.   

 

Most of the differences were still subtle even by 1984 but the lower relief is hardly subtle.  The '77 and '78 lower relief was more more subtle.  It was '79 before the relief dropped in earnest. 

Ok, I can accept claims of differences in position and shape of lettering. None of this has been mentioned by OP, or anywhere in this thread until now. OP shows no pictures of Q, and has different lighting on Unum. If we can get clear and identically lit pictures that show these differences, we'll make progress. 

On 3/27/2023 at 4:30 PM, RWB said:

How about providing some empirical measurements from a surface profilometer -- similar to the images I posted about a year ago.

If the claimants have access to modern photographical suits, an overlay would be another great tool to clearly show differences. The pictures must be shot from the same angle, same magnification, and same lighting to be useful. But modern photo suites should have a way to overlay images to clearly show differences. 

On 3/27/2023 at 5:20 PM, nccc said:

Die Deterioration/Wear:

Why is this the go-to explanation? The logic I’m hearing is this:

There is die deterioration/wear, therefore this coin cannot have doubling.

The fact is all business strike quarters I've seen - including ones in Unc Mint Sets - have die deterioration/wear.

Die deterioration/wear does not preclude or exclude a coin from having doubling.
 

I agree - die wear does not preclude doubling. But, most of what you have shown can be more easily described by die wear instead of new types. Occam's Razor. 

On 3/27/2023 at 5:22 PM, nccc said:

J P M:

I think the industry term that I’ve seen is “notching” and the diagnostic is called a “notch” and some notches are double serifs while others are not. My ‘double peak’ is a notch but it is not a double serif.

 

The "double peak" on the A can just as easily be explained by die deterioration that has advanced to the state where it also has radial "starburst" grooves. The coin you show is clearly a very late die state, and starburst die grooves are common on many of the images you show. Your "notch" may in fact not be a notch at all.

On 3/27/2023 at 5:45 PM, nccc said:

physics-fan:

Do you truly think the doubling on the "Type 2 over Type 1" DDR is just hubbing pressure or die wear? Die wear is jagged & random. It does not form straight, sharply defined, or crisp lines that form into a doubled outline of a letter.

Can you or someone show me die wear that looks like this:


Look how crisp the lines are on the thinner “P” on top of the thicker one.

And on the 'R' in AMERICA, the doubled outline follows exactly the outline of the legs of the 'R'. What is die wear are the striations below the legs.


Look at how much distance there is in the gap between the thin and the thick/doubled outline of the legs (which is clearly defined). Did hubbing pressure or die wear really cause that? If so, why the wide gap in the doubling?

Just google die deterioration doubling. It has exactly the appearance that you show. Different coin, different era... but this 1999P Jefferson shows something extremely similar. 

[RWB]

On 3/27/2023 at 9:57 PM, physics-fan3.14 said:

Occam's Razor. 

Occam didn't have a razor -- he had a full beard.

[cladking]

On 3/27/2023 at 6:16 PM, RWB said:

Here's a link to the post I mentioned.

 

Thanks for reminding me of this thread.  I have been paying more attention to the slopes of the lettering and some other design details.  

Not much to add yet though.  

[nccc]

On 3/24/2023 at 2:28 PM, RWB said:

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.

RWB:

Thank you for the tip. I’ve contacted some publications and all but one didn’t reply. On the one who did reply, I inquired about ownership of content/material and formatting of docs & images to send to them but they haven’t replied.

Have you or do you know of anyone who has successfully done this?

 

[nccc]

On 3/27/2023 at 6:16 PM, RWB said:

Here's a link to the post I mentioned.

 

RWB:

Thanks for the link. That post is very informative. I’m thinking exactly the same thing – a closeup 3D image. What is the actual name of this “profilometer” device?