Odd quarter -- no reeding, no rims, off-center, correct diameter

I don't think this piece of equipment was still being used in Y2K.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Well, they used something that created the microscopic engraving artifacts that cause cartwheel luster to happen.

 

That's... not what luster comes from, at least as I understand it (and as it's been explained in other threads).

NGC explains coin luster

 

The cartwheel effect occurs due to the metal flow ridges rather than any engraving. Cleaning , excessive dipping, or wear erodes the tops and the 'cartwheel' effect as well as toning decreases in magnitude. Jim

MS Morgan S$ surface X400.

 

I've heard that explanation and I'm sure this will annoy a lot of people, but I don't buy it. I'm speaking as someone who spent a major chunk of his life dealing with optics, and, on a macro scale, I've seen the effect duplicated by visible concentric rings.

In any event, can we just agree to disagree on this? I'm mainly curious about this particular coin and don't want go get bogged down in minutia. I'm pretty sure we can agree that regardless the cause, it does wear away quite easily.

As I've been sitting here wondering about this thing, it's occurred to me that if it was in fact plated, the plating would have needed to occur prior to striking (based on the surface appearance), which would seem (to me at least) to raise some curious implications.

I'm sure there have over the years been quite a few undocumented experiments, and, we know that experimental strikes do on occasion leak out into the wild.

I would really like to know just what this thing is...

 

If it's 5.7 grams, it can't be anything else but
a quarter planchet - and then it's been plated
after it was released.

No off metal planchet, no experiment, no error.
sorry, but it's a plated clad quarter.

 

I've seen it "duplicated" by other means, too, but flow lines are what cause the effect on struck coins.

@desertgem even posted a nice photomicrograph showing the effect; I've seen the same thing myself with modest magnification. I see it on lustrous struck coins all the time; I've never seen the concentric lines you mention in-hand. I have seen photos of coins with lathe lines, but they look very different, and they're independent of luster.

I understand that luster isn't what you're trying to focus on in this thread. But if you're willing to deny common (and well-documented) knowledge in favor of your own theory on that issue, why are you seeking anyone else's advice on the issue of composition, or any other issue?

 

Thank you for your opinion, much appreciated.

 

So, basically, if I have an opinion that differs from the accepted wisdom, everything else I say is prejudged to be fallacious.

OK, good to know. I will therefore STFU and go away from this topic. Any further exploration WRT this coin will be conducted under other venues.

PS: So much for agreeing to disagree. I'll now go file that next to "Can't we all just get along?"

 

Yes, that's exactly what I said to you.

I'm not going to try to tease apart the differences between "fallacious", "differing from accepted wisdom", and "contradicting ground truth that anyone can observe with a moderately powerful magnifying glass". After all, as you said, luster isn't supposed to be the focus of this thread.

I will point out again, though, that you seem to have already concluded what your coin is, and you're dismissing input from knowledgeable collectors, and at least one recognized expert in the field, that differs from your opinion. So, again: why? Are you only here to look for confirmation, or barring that, argument?

 

OK, you succeeded in baiting me into one final comment.

I am inured to argumentum ab auctoritate. Coins that were "known" to be "impossible" to exist have turned out to... exist. I.e., 1982-D small date bronze.

I do not know many many things. But I do know that the U.S. Mint does things that no one outside the Mint knows of -- until and unless they leak out into the wild.

I am not a metallurgist -- but I know it's trivially easy to make a quarter with a nickel core having the same weight as one with a copper core. Simply change the thickness of the cupronickel layers. Not even close to rocket science.

Is this coin plated? If so, it's the most remarkable case of plating I've ever seen -- and during my years spent repairing cameras and lenses I've seen my share of plating.

If it was plated post-strike then whoever did it deserves a Nobel prize. If it was plated pre-strike... well, that would be consistent with its appearance. And no, the images are not perfect representations of the coin's appearance.

I don't know what it is. I don't claim to know what it is. For those that do claim to know what it is, my hat's off to you. It must be a real burden to endure that massive an ego.

Any further swipes at me will go unanswered. I have what's left of a life to live. This tripe will not impinge upon it.