1932... D? Washington quarter.

Possibly a bad counterfiet?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

A really terrible counterfeit. If you're trying to counterfeit a key date with a mint mark, making the mint mark visible is kinda the whole point.

 

Here's a reference (screenshot from an ebay coin 1932 D) :



1932D

 

Not a 'D' to me.

 

You know, I asked a similar question not too long ago with a Seated Dime that I thought was an 1853 No Arrows.

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/“dateless”-seated-dime-possibly-1853-no-arrows.315197/#post-3062766

The thing is, these "finds" always seem to show up on very low grade pieces. Although many great finds do happen on low grade pieces, such as some large cent NC die varieties which are only known by a few trashed examples, the odds that you're convincing yourself you're seeing a "D" are much higher.

Go in with a worst case assumption (most common possible coin) and work up to best case. If you have Photoshop, do an overlay with a real coin. Assume the coin is a 1932 plain until you've proven otherwise.

 

Not sure if it looks better in hand, but I don't see it. I don't think I've ever seen a weak mintmark on early Washington quarters. I have a fair-about good 1932-D that is far more worn than this piece and the D still stands out like a sore thumb.

 

I looked at old auctions of FR02 and AG03 32-Ds and in every instance the mint Mark is clearly visible.

 

What you're looking at, but the "D" is too low too large. I wonder if it could be were a glued on D has fallen off.

 

This may well be a genuine piece with a “smear” mintmark. Techs at the Treasury Department’s Mint Laboratory called this effect “Ejection Doubling.” It’s caused when part of the struck coin is still in contact with the dies as they open and the feed fingers push the coin off the press bed. This can cause the Mint mark to be out of position. Given the wear on the coin, the faded mintmark is within reason. If the mintmark is from ejection doubling, it would wear more than normal. I see no signs of discoloration, cleaning or tooling. But then, we are all looking at photos and not the coin itself.

 

I cannot remember ever seeing a genuine 32-D, no matter how worn or trashed, that had nothing but a exceedingly faint ghost of a "mintmark" remaining, especially considering how they're generally situated in somewhat of a depression.

This is a case where Occam's Razor should be applied instead of trying to come up with fantastical excuses as to how this could have happened.

 

Sounds very familiar... but is also very solid advice.

Just to add to what you've already said...

If the OP wishes to do an overlay, he first must discover how many rev dies were used.

 

I don't think it is, either. But hope springs eternal. You going to submit it?

 

even if it were a 32-D, it wouldn't be worth submitting at that grade level.

 

Thanks for the replies; I can see it from a couple feet away but I do agree it looks very weak especially for the detail that's on it. I'll be keeping it whether it's a D or not.

 

Just what Beefer said, I don't think I'll take that risk.

 

Not a D by anybody’s standards

 

Definitely not a D. Normally, the D is very readable at even FR-2 grade.