2 variety discoveries for 1983 D Washington Quarter 0

[nccc]

physics-fan:

Thanks for your reply and images. It’s good to get some feedback and comparisons. That said, the coins in these images look nowhere like mine. They’re also low resolution and not focused well.

From what I can see, it looks like the coin on your first photo does have die wear.

However, here’s a major difference – and it’s a key difference: on your first photo, the letters don’t have a sharp outline anymore. Instead they have a ‘mushy’ or ‘soft’ outline due to the die wear. Now, look at the letters on my "Type 2 over Type 1" DDR. Look how sharp the outlines are on the thinner letters: the "A" in "STATES", the “P” in "PLURIBUS", and the "A" in "QUARTER".

Look how sharp the lines are on the thinner “P” in "PLURIBUS" on top of the thicker one. Also, on the "A" in "QUARTER" – look at the line of the right slope below the double peak. Again, a very sharp outline.

As for your second photo, the coin in it doesn’t even have any doubling that I can see. What were you trying to show there?

Your theory or proposal goes against the principle of Occam’s Razor. Based on the visual evidence that I’ve presented, the most obvious and simplest explanation is that IT IS doubling - and I have yet to see a reasoned response to make me think otherwise.

 

[nccc]

On 3/27/2023 at 8:57 PM, physics-fan3.14 said:

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.

I've thought of this as well, although an overlay of one image over another will not work as you’d have to make the over image translucent. I think the way to do it is to trace the outlines and do an overlay of them. But this is a lot of work to do manually. I’ll look into software that can do this tracing.

That said, I think the 3D approach is better because it’s not just the outlines – it’s the profiles. A higher profile would ‘pop’ up above the thicker, lower profile and the actual outline would not show. I think this is exactly what's going on with the thinner “P” in "PLURIBUS" on top of the thicker one. Do you understand what I’m saying?

Regards

 

[J P M]

I am still wondering about the full coin shots nccc , if you have them. I still think it is a worn out die. Remember the die is the opposite of the coin so in reality the small letter over the fat letter is just the lower part of the die and as it wears out the metal pushes away and makes the larger part of the letter. Also your type 1 coins have barely any die scratches in the fields and your type 2 coins are full of them. To me that says a lot of polishing going on. Type 2 over type 1 is stress and polish dies.    

Edited April 5, 2023 by J P M

[RWB]

On 4/4/2023 at 5:09 PM, nccc said:

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?

 

An on-line search will pull up several types and manufacturers. Only look for "optical" or "non contact" profilometers. I have used a Keyence, as in the "mushy details" thread -- but they are very expensive...even to rent (I don't own one). A university, college or materials research facility might run some tests for you.

[nccc]

I created some diagrams to illustrate what I’m talking about the overlay of the profiles on the "Type 2 over Type 1" Doubled Die Reverse.

As you can see in Scenario 1 where the letters are directly lined up, the actual outline of the thinner letter would not show. What will show is the higher relief portion that ‘pops’ up within the outline of the thicker one.

In Scenario 2 where the letters are offset, you will see that the doubling is overlapped rather than an outline within another outline.

[nccc]

On 4/4/2023 at 5:19 PM, J P M said:

I am still wondering about the full coin shots

I already posted on this back on March 27.

[nccc]

On 4/4/2023 at 5:19 PM, J P M said:

the small letter over the fat letter is just the lower part of the die and as it wears out the metal pushes away and makes the larger part of the letter

Die wear results in a ‘mushy’ or ‘soft’ outline. Look how sharp the lines are on the thinner “P” in "PLURIBUS" on top of the thicker one. That is not die wear.

Edited April 11, 2023 by nccc

[nccc]

On 4/4/2023 at 5:19 PM, J P M said:

your type 1 coins have barely any die scratches in the fields and your type 2 coins are full of them

I disagree. My type 2 has a nice strike. Maybe you've got these 2 switched. The type 1 has thick letters. It would help if you posted marked up images.

[nccc]

On 4/5/2023 at 10:47 AM, RWB said:

An on-line search will pull up several types and manufacturers. Only look for "optical" or "non contact" profilometers. I have used a Keyence, as in the "mushy details" thread -- but they are very expensive...even to rent (I don't own one). A university, college or materials research facility might run some tests for you.

I thought profilometer was a name you gave to it - like “profil-o-meter” and not an actual technical name. I'll do some online research to get familiar with them. I mentioned a couple of weeks ago about inquiring with the local colleges. I might just have to go there in person.

[Henri Charriere]

On 4/10/2023 at 11:41 PM, nccc said:

I thought profilometer was a name you gave to it - like “profil-o-meter” and not an actual technical name....

A "Keyence" was mentioned along with the fact that "they are very expensive... even to rent."

[J P M]

On 4/10/2023 at 11:28 PM, nccc said:

I already posted on this back on March 27.

You have posted only parts of the coins not the whole coin obverse and reverse please. 

[Henri Charriere]

I don't know if it is due to arrogance, ignorance or possibly laziness----and I certainly don't want to offend anyone, but I am inclined to accept all of the OP's inferences and interpretations of the evidence he has provided and thank him for taking the time and trouble of presenting his "variety discoveries" to the membership.  My only [rhetorical] question is: has this matter never been brought up before by anyone in the past forty years since these coins rolled off the assembly line?