1978 quarter. Mint unreadable

Discussion in 'Error Coins' started by David Southerland, Aug 24, 2017.

?

Is the mint mark an error or just worn like this

  1. Yes mint is error

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. No mint is not

    100.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. David Southerland

    David Southerland New Member

  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. spirityoda

    spirityoda Coin Junky

    PMD post mint damage
     
  4. David Southerland

    David Southerland New Member

    How does the mint mark get Pmd like that. It's the first one I've ever seen like this. Especially with the mint mark as unidentifiable as it is.
     
  5. Tyler Graton

    Tyler Graton Well-Known Member

    Something hit it and made a ding
     
  6. David Southerland

    David Southerland New Member

    So I'm kinda guessing here but that probably wasn't even suppose to be a mint mark at all but just post mint damage?
     
  7. spirityoda

    spirityoda Coin Junky

    it got hit by something to smash it.
     
  8. Tyler Graton

    Tyler Graton Well-Known Member

    Goodness... lol yes there was supposed to be a mint mark there. Something just hit the mint mark and made it look weird. Simple
     
  9. alurid

    alurid Well-Known Member

    The mint mark on the obverse next to hair ribbon looks like a "D" or it did until it got hit.
     
    Spark1951 likes this.
  10. paddyman98

    paddyman98 I'm a professional expert in specializing! Supporter

    @David Southerland
    1978... Years and years of wear and tear is called Circulation Damage.
    PMD means Post Mint Damage. It could of occurred anytime it left the Denver Mint from 1978 until the moment you found it.
     
    VistaCruiser69 likes this.
  11. Mjs1982%$steffens

    Mjs1982%$steffens New Member

    I have a 1978 proof quarter unreadable mint mark.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 8, 2018
  12. Clawcoins

    Clawcoins Damaging Coins Daily

    If you can answer the question of how the coin was worn and how each and every scratch, ding, hit ,scrap, wear on the quarter was initially done .. then you'd have your answer.

    other wise we just lump it all together as 40 years of circulation wear.
     
  13. paddyman98

    paddyman98 I'm a professional expert in specializing! Supporter

    Then it is also damaged.
     
  14. Bert Gedin

    Bert Gedin Well-Known Member

    George looks pockmarked.
     
  15. Lovebug

    Lovebug New Member

    I have a 1978 quarter that has the same mark. Coincidence??Thats why I am at this post.
     
  16. Heavymetal

    Heavymetal Well-Known Member

    Got pics?
     
  17. Luis barajas

    Luis barajas New Member

    Mint error I also have one
     
  18. Kasia

    Kasia Got my learning hat on

    Coin facts: the 1978 Washington Quarter had either no mintmark (made in Philly), or a D (Denver) or S (San Francisco) mintmark. Although damaged, this mintmark is still readable as being a D rather than a S. So it is not unidentifiable. Just sayin' :wacky:
     
  19. Clawcoins

    Clawcoins Damaging Coins Daily

  20. Kasia

    Kasia Got my learning hat on

    Because why not? Lol. Guess I've been had on this one, I didn't even look to see when it had been posted by the OP.
     
  21. paddyman98

    paddyman98 I'm a professional expert in specializing! Supporter

    Yours is also damaged also.

    Not a mint error of any kind.

    Just because something on a coin looks strange doesn't automatically make it an error. There are many ways a mint mark can be damaged or altered after it left the US Mint.

    Wow.. Some People on this thread just don't get it!
    :banghead::facepalm:
     
    SensibleSal66 likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page