1965 Quarter Smaller, Thinner, Lighter - Help Identify 1 1

[JavaJoe23]

Hi,

I have this quarter that was part of my father’s small collection that I need help identifying and possibly assessing any potential value and recommendations on if it should be sent in to be graded/encapsulated. The quarter is from 1965 and is thinner than a standard quarter - it’s very slightly thicker than a dime, has a smaller diameter vs a standard quarter - appears to be about 23mm diameter and is basically missing the border along the rim but has the ridged edge, and lighter than a standard quarter - it weighs 4.6 grams.  I've attached a number of pictures to help show this quarter including with it on top of another quarter for diameter comparison (last image) and with it in between a dime and a normal quarter for thickness comparison (second to last image).  The reverse has a strip of lighter coloring similar to the obverse (3rd picture)...this lighter color on the reverse aligns with a color difference on the edge of the coin (second picture).

In trying to identify this quarter, I researched a number of possibilities and learned that with 1965 being a transition year, this could represent some rare mint error possibilities such as an experimental strike, thin/missing clad layer, wrong planchet, or possibly a foreign planchet. On the obverse there appears to be a faint large rotated B near the nose of Washington, and some very faint rotated 5’s and other letters near the opposite edge behind his head. These can be seen better when enlarging the image (1st picture). This has me thinking it was struck on another coin or struck multiple times, potentially supporting the experimental strike possibility.

I took the coin to a local coin dealer but they weren’t much help as they didn’t specialize in error coins and couldn’t provide any insights. So, I’m thinking it would be best to send it to a grading company for evaluation, but unsure if this coin would have a value to justify the evaluation/encapsulation cost or if that’s even appropriate at this stage since I’m not sure exactly what this coin is and why it is smaller, thinner, and lighter than a standard quarter. 

If anyone can offer any thoughts on if this is a possible rare mint error coin and any thoughts on what value such a coin might have to a collector, I would greatly appreciate it. 

Thanks in advance for any thoughts, comments, or suggestions on where to go from here. If more details or additional pics are needed, please let me know. 

Thank you.

[powermad5000]

Hello and welcome to the forum!

First and foremost, let me begin with your scale. It is NOT accurate for weighing coins. A scale for weighing coins has to weigh to the hundredth of a decimal (0.01g). Your scale only weighs to the tenth of a decimal (0.1g) so the scale is either rounding up or rounding down to the nearest tenth of a decimal place. Based on your scale, I cannot accept that as an accurate weight.

On 9/26/2024 at 2:37 PM, JavaJoe23 said:

appears to be about 23mm diameter

Appears to be or did you measure this with digital calipers for an accurate measurement?

On 9/26/2024 at 2:37 PM, JavaJoe23 said:

I researched a number of possibilities and learned that with 1965 being a transition year, this could represent some rare mint error possibilities such as an experimental strike, thin/missing clad layer, wrong planchet, or possibly a foreign planchet.

1965 was the change from silver to a copper clad coin. A planchet error would be for a leftover silver planchet from 1964. An experimental strike (test strike) is slowly becoming debunked as simply an equipment problem [see my link to error-ref.com below], thin or missing clad layer is not an issue as I can see the separation on the side of the quarter, a wrong planchet would either not be able to be imparted the reeded edge, would be of the wrong metal or composition, or of another denomination completely which would either have very wide fields or the coin would be missing design details because the planchet is too small to support the design, neither of which is present on your coin, and a foreign planchet would be ruled out as I don't think foreign countries had any coins in clad in that year (if I am wrong on this someone will correct me).

https://www.error-ref.com/?s=test+strike

 

On 9/26/2024 at 2:37 PM, JavaJoe23 said:

On the obverse there appears to be a faint large rotated B near the nose of Washington, and some very faint rotated 5’s and other letters near the opposite edge behind his head.

We call this paredolia which is seeing things that are not actually there. This is a very well circulated quarter with many circulation marks and abrasions.

 

On 9/26/2024 at 2:37 PM, JavaJoe23 said:

This has me thinking it was struck on another coin or struck multiple times, potentially supporting the experimental strike possibility.

Paredolia might make you think that, but the reality is this does not support the experimental strike possibility. A coin that is overstruck does not look like this. The second strike typically flattens and obliterates all details from the first strike especially in the flat fields of the coin where the die pressure is greatest and may only leave behind very faint outlines of the highest parts of the relief of the coin and maybe a faint letter or number nearest the rim. Multiple coins in the striking chamber certainly do not look like this. A coin that is multistruck has separate images of the same coin with the same details of a normally struck coin in the places where it would be found, just off center of the initial strike. Please refer to the error-ref.com link below on coins with multiple strikes. 

https://www.error-ref.com/?s=multiple+strikes

 

Now that there is some proof to debunk some wild claims here, what I see in your 5th photo with the coins laying flat, I notice the upper part of the rim in the cladding is at a beveled 45 degree slant. I see a coin fully struck with all of its details on both sides. I see the slightest part of the proto rim still visible. While this coin may be of thinner planchet stock, and a slightly lower weight as struck from the Mint, I feel this coin was a normally struck issue that was pushed into something as in maybe a jewelry mount or bevel. I think if you were to submit this coin for grading it would be at a huge loss to you as I feel it would come back as Details - Rim Damage. I see nothing here to lead me to question that it was normally struck when it left the Mint.

[J P M]

I think it is the effect of inflation, the Quarter is much smaller than it used to be. (Joking) It could have been soaking in a chemical pool of some kind. It also looks to have been rolled on edge for a time. I do not think it is a wrong planchet or an error. I think it is damage.

[Sandon]

    Welcome to the NGC chat board.

    If what you think you know about mint errors--or about coins generally--comes mostly from what you have read on the internet, please read the following recent article by a prominent coin dealer: Jeff Garrett: Fake News and Misinformation in Numismatics | NGC (ngccoin.com). 

   Although it isn't possible for us to know just what happened to this worn 1965 quarter, I think it highly unlikely that it left the U.S. mint undersized or underweight. The brown coloration of and reeding on the rim indicates that it was struck on a normal copper nickel clad planchet of normal size. The edge reeding on these coins is created by a serrated metal collar that fits closely around the dies. The edge reeds should not have appeared on a coin struck on an undersized planchet that would not have filled the diameter of the dies. The abnormally raised and crimped edge of the coin suggests that it was rolled or squeezed to a smaller diameter as previously suggested. Even assuming that the scale on which you weighed the coin is accurate, the most likely explanation for the coin being underweight is that it was given an acid bath, which would also explain its roughness and discoloration. It resembles no type of mint error with which I am familiar after 53 years as a collector and student of U.S. coinage.

   If you still believe that this coin is a mint error, I recommend that you request an opinion from and post its images on the "contact us" page of the website of Sullivan Numismatics (Jon Sullivan), a dealer who specializes in mint errors and contributes to error-ref.com, at https://sullivannumismatics.com/contact-us/. 

   Submitting coins to third-party grading services is a costly proposition that works best for those who have the knowledge to grade and otherwise evaluate coins themselves. For you to submit this single coin to NGC yourself would involve a paid annual membership with submission privileges of at least $25, a "Modern" tier grading fee of $19 (the least expensive), an error attribution fee of $18, a per order processing fee of $10, and a return shipping fee of $28--$100 in total, not including the cost of shipping the coin to NGC. See NGC Services and Fees | NGC (ngccoin.com). Grading services keep your money without regard to their findings or the actual value of the coin, which, in this case, if not a mint error, is its 25-cent face value.