1932 D Quarter... is it fake?

IMO; my first impression was that the hairline marks go under the mint mark and it looks like the D was placed (soldered) on after shining her up. That, plus the original owners assessment, leads me to believe it is a fake. But, sure, I'd send it in to NGC or PCGS for verification and grade. If it was mine, I 'd want to find out either way.

Bruce

Read more: http://www.cointalk.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=761841#ixzz0ZoNuKgOy

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That mintmark looks like it's sitting on top of the coin. I see no metal flow lines and it does not look at all like it rises up out of the metal of the coin. Obviously an added mintmark! Isn't anyone else seeing that?

 

I'm not, silvr, quite to the contrary. The mint mark is sitting in a depression on the coin, which is characteristic of genuine 32-Ds. Also, on a genuine coin the polish lines would not be seen on the mint mark, as it is punched into the die and therefore is not polished when the rest of the die is.

 

http://www.stellacoinnews.com/index.php/washington-quarters-ch-2-altered-counterfeit-coins/

 

so, what are you saying, jesse? Do you think it's genuine? Are you just backing what I said up? I wish I knew. The mint mark does look different on a heavily worn coin than the ones that you have pictured.

The shape looks fine to me
and it doesn't have polish lines on it, both plusses.

 

Jesse,

Would love to hear what you think too.

Sparky

 

According to Bill Fivaz's Counterfeit Detection Guide on page 36 (picture)-37. Has this on the 1932-d QT, Genuine 1932-d's mintmark appears "smeared", as a result of strike doubling. Many of the mintmarks appears to be sitting down in a depression. The serifs on both the "S" and "D" mintmarks are rather square in form. Hope this helped. -O)

 

Guys, I wasn't trying to suggest anything...figured adding that photo might be an addition to the thread although it is obviously a better condition coin.

Since you ask, I do find many characteristics of the coin in question to be similar to that of an authentic. The 2 distinct diagonal lines, the shape of the serifs, and the depressions next to the serifs, I still question the shape and wear of the D, its texture, and the original owner's designation.

Sorry I wasn't clear

 

This is just MHO but the ONLY thing that leads me to believe that this coin is a fake is the OPs declaration that his father had the 2x2 marked fake.

If I were to evaluate it by the photos alone, I would lean towards real, but I would have to see the coin in hand before I am willing to say for sure.

 

You should send it to one of the TPG's, if you care to spend the money or take it to a coin show. I would first take a couple of different old D minted quarters and set them all in a line. All you need is 2 other quarters besides that one you are questioning. In hand your quarter by itself may look real and all you need is something to pit it against. Just line up the quarters and take a good look, one at a time.

Other members looking at pics can only be right most of the time but they can not be right all of the time. I mean, we have the best on this forum but pics can be illusive. good luck, I hope it's real but I think it's a fake.

 

You would idealy want to compare 32-Ds... Series is loaded with varieties... I agree though, worth sending to a TPG.

Mikenoodle, The photos alone also sway me more towards authentic.

 

I think someone just wanted an excuse to play with a new toy

 

Sorry for bumping an old post, but if the OP is still on this forum, did you send it in, and if so, was it declared a fake or not? I am looking to maybe buy one of these at an auction near me and wanted to learn more about detecting a fake. Thanks, and sorry again for bumping an old post, but now I'm curious!