1965 Quarter error?

Just got this no less than an hour ago. What do you guys think?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think it's been pretty beat up. Not an error, though. Post mint damage. Spend it.

 

Pmd(post mint damage) it's worth; 25 cents but I'd pay ya 10 cents due to pay pal fees. Go get 2 more of theses and get a soda.

 

It looks to me like a massive obverse & reverse die failure producing cuds on both sides. Take a close look at the edge that extends into the fields. It appears raised. If someone was grinding or filing it down, it would not be raised above the field. Granted, there appears to be some rim damage on the reverse near 2 o'clock, but you can also see a weakness in the strike on some of the legend that corresponds to the breaks.

Chris

 

So would you consider this a error coin??

 

Agreed. Could you possibly show a picture of the rim?

 

I will try to post pics of it. From what I can see the rim concaves inward on both sides of the damaged parts of the coin.

 

this is what the edge looks like on the damaged ends of the coin.

 

We can see the rims in the obverse and reverse photos. The last photos are of the edge. Looks like PMD all the way to me.

 

what other then the minting process would cause the metal to cud on the rim and cover letters and also be damaged on the edges?

 

perhaps its an optical illusion.. but is this coin not round?

 

its perfectly round just like a normal quarter would be.

 

Cuds are usually not flat like the anomaly on your coin. It looks to me like something flattened your coin in two places.

 

it is actually raised at those two points. so it concaves down on both sides

 

This coin is badly damaged and nothing else. It was not struck by broken or damaged dies.

 

At first glance, I thought the coin looked "scraped", so it would be PMD. The point was made that it looked like extra metal on the coin, making it a CUD.

But, honestly, if it were a CUD, I think someone would have removed it from circulation long before now. A mint error coin is a curiosity and even non-collectors tend to put them aside. Since 1965, hundreds of people likely have handled it. I think it strange that, if seeing the coin in hand, that an "error" would be passed on. Especially looking at the wear on it.

I gotta go with PMD. Looks like it might have gotten caught in a machine and spun or something ?

gary

 

I'm still not convinced that it's PMD. Please explain how that much metal displacement can be raised in the fields and have the voids in the central parts of the edge. It ain't like plaster of paris which can be spread here and there with a trowel.

Chris

 

Exactly how it was damaged is hard to say. But its appearance is completely incompatible with what can transpire within a coinage press.

 

Being a little harsh there, aren't you Ricky? Better read this post:

http://www.cointalk.com/t193927/

 

i can't lend any validity to the argument that this coin is pmd, but i handle literally thousands of quarters on an average day while wrapping them in bankrolls. i've seen dozens of quarters with similar damage, like they've been smashed up or pressed somehow. i have always regarded them as pmd and moved on.