1972 Looks like Proof no mint mark

Not a proof. The 1964-D is not a good choice of a coin to compare it to. The dies were modified in the late 1960's or may be very early 70's. The 1964-D has an almost high relief look. Then they became more of a flat strike and today they have lost their appeal. Similar to what was done to the Washington quarters. In the original design the quarters had nice fields which made Washington's image seem to stand out. However, when they started making the state quarters they made Washington look like a cartoon character. They did bring back the original design this year and next year they will make the quarters with the design on the obverse they should have used in 1932 but, they did use it in 1999 on the 5 dollar gold coin.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I find it amazing that some think I have concluded I think the OP's coin is a proof. I have only offered information as it relates to this coin. Proof coins are not in my wheelhouse. So, what exactly is the purpose of your thread?

Edit: I forgot to include that only the San Francisco Mint issued proof coins in 1972.

 

Sorry, @Rafique, I forgot to mention only a S minted 1972 could be a proof. I was multi-tasking at the time, but I notice no one mentioned this.

 

I must make one correction. @robec did make a comment about 1972 S cents.
See post #8.

 

yeah that's right my friend, we all started there. Thanks for your input, have a great day

 

yes thanks @ Robert . i do have a few proof 1972 with the S, compared them to that 72 , and its just been playing in my head for a while now that , there's something bout that coin. had to find out , you no what i mean, thanks sunny day to you

 

where's your mind my friend? so one tracked you cant even think that im trying to say that maybe its a Denver minted coin without a DDDD mint mark. !!

 

the Treads are there its the Olbies that that think they no to much and wana READ THE TREAT . Not the NEWBIES fault...lol

 

had to say that , you asked for it sorry my friend

 

Here is a 72 proof coin for your viewing pleasure. No postprocessing except cropping.

 

hmmmm..... looks like a Quarter to me, taut we was comparing Lincoln's. i got a few of them thanks

 

Proofs are similar to each other and so can learn something about what to look for on a 72 S quarter that would carry over to a 72 S cent. Strike, square rims, mirrored fields, s mm that sort of thing.

 

Here is the obverse that I believe will be used next year on the quarter.

 

Another dolt for the ignore list.

 

You do have a rather heavy duty one, looks like to me. How does the lettering check out to your proofs?

 

well my friend , i would agree to dis agree with you as the S is supposed to be punched on a proof coin but some dont have it and whos to no , just like the famous list of proof coins without a mint mark ...one day there could be a discovery that the mint made a mistake again and for get to mention that there could others out there....Hypotactically. but i no what you mean, thanks

 

Somebody has to be the first to find the error when there is one. It's just lottery level odds against you. And even longer if not in original Proof Mint Packaging.

That said, somebody is always winning the lottery and somebody is discovering those Mintmarkless Proofs when they ARE made.

 

Have you forgotten what it was like when you first started? It's hard enough to find kids interested in collecting coins these days without ignoring them when they over-react. It's pretty much SOP today.

 

The reason there are a couple dates with no-S proofs is that one of the dues used to make the proof did not have a mint Mark. So a small percentage of coins were missing if. But, that’s not a single coin error. This coin is 50 years old. Had something similar occurred they would have been discovered years ago.

Could grease filling have obliterated a Mintmark. That does happen. Sure, but such situations result in a coin with less value.

 

@CamaroDMD dies not dues