1983 d quarter reeding error?

i work in a bank, and i usually try to run the coin counter to look for silver and any other oddities. this morning, i came across this 1983-d quarter. it doesn't appear to have any striking errors on the obverse or reverse, but the reeded edge is quite peculiar. it's almost like the coin was smashed, but the faces of the coin show no signs of damage. also, the ridges on the top and bottom of the reeds are very uniform.

i've searched the webs for about an hour for a similar example, but have found nothing. included are a couple (lo-quality) pics of the quarter off my blackberry. anyone seen anything like this before?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

a few other notes about the coin. i don't have any calibration tools on me, so these are just visual estimations.

the diameter appears to be a full millimeter smaller than a standard quarter. it also appears to be slightly thinner than standard. the obverse striking may be slightly off-center, but not enough to get excited.

 

It looks like someone milled the reeding off for whatever reason. Is the edge flat or is the copper inset?

 

the edge is flat on either side, but you can see the reeds inset below the surface of the edge. the reeds appear to be copper.

 

i'm home now, where i can get a better look at things. the color variation on the obverse appears to be the copper core. the reverse has the same variation as well.

 

this is a picture of the reverse. you can see where the copper core comes through here as well.

 

Looks like a quick acid bath to me.

 

i had considered the same, but i don't see how that would explain the edge. i will try to get a better shot of it to repost.

 

Encased and worn in a necklace maybe?

 

you can see the reeded copper core layer, but the nickel is smooth and is of a slightly larger diameter than the copper core.

i'm open to any thoughts. if it's an acid wash that's fine, but in my novice opinion, i don't see how an acid wash could produce an edge like that.

 

...possibly? i don't know what effect that would have on a coin.

 

Nope... just soaked in acid, which 'eats' away at the softer copper core as opposed to the much harder nickel clad. See this post:

http://www.cointalk.com/t188428/

 

that's interesting. i've never seen one of these before (novice ) so i was intrigued. i'm surprised that the acid could be so corrosive as to eat away the edge, yet not deteriorate the definition of the relief and the reeding.

 

This is an error in the metal blank/planchet. The cladding metal was too thin and did not completely cover the copper core. Thus, some copper is visible on the obverse and reverse sides. Since some the harder cladding wasn't present and the entire planchet was too thin, the dies didn't make a full impression, resulting in a weak strike, as evidenced by the weak obverse. When the dies hit the planchet, the softer copper core was squeezed out into the reeded collar but the partially missing cladding prevented that metal from also being pushed into the collar reeding. When the dies separated, the softer copper core, not having the harder cladding to retain it, rebounded to just inside the smooth rim of what claddinng was there. The end result is a coin that is slightly narrower and, I'll bet that if you weigh it you'll find it is also slightly lighter than specifications.


That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

Dave... you should be a politician lol!

 

see, now i've gone and gotten all hopeful about this coin being a rarity.

i would like to believe davidh because it sounds much more interesting. however, i tend to be a bit of a skeptic.

:confusedface:

 

ok, i've been thinking about the physics of this idea. with the copper core being softer than the nickel clad, wouldn't the copper core lose the reeding faster than the nickel clad? as it is, the clad shows almost no evidence of having reeding (there are a few light reeding marks grouped onto one portion on the obverse cladding) but the copper core still has a very well-defined, yet recessed, reeded edge.

 

The exposed reeding (clad layers) is susceptible to general circulation wear, and being much thinner than normal, will rapidly become smooth. I've seen a number of examples similar to yours. Despite what DavidH says, there is no other explanation.

 

ahh, there is that as well. thank you very much for your help in figuring this out.

so where's the button i push to call shenanigans on another poster then?

 

So you're saying that the clad layers wore faster than the soft copper core. OK, following your thoughts, when the coin was minted both the soft copper core and the thin clad layers were reeded. Then with years of wear the clad layers' reeding was worn off, leaving the copper less affected, but still retaining the reeds.

How is it that, with all three layers having reeds, only the two outer layers wore down, leaving the inner layer much less worn and still having reeding? That's a mighty selective wear pattern.

As I see it, your theory holds up only if the original reeding was much deeper on the copper core than on the outer layers. How could that have happened?




There's always another explanation.