1983 d quarter reeding error?

Of course there is... even if that explanation is wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

But yours was the other explanation. Seriously though, maybe one of us is wrong, maybe both of us are wrong. But nevertheless, I'd be interested in a logical explanation of how, as you say, the outer two layers wore down leaving the softer center layer almost untouched with reeding still visible, even though they all started out the same diameter and with reeds.

 

hope im not stepping in poo poo here but...

the acid ate the core. it didnt wear it down. ive seen rusted steel that became much smaller but still retained the surface pattern. so now you have an eaten core that retained its pattern. the clad also retained its pattern, but... throw it into circulation, run it through a couple of vending machines or slot machines, and the reeding will wear.

in this case only the exposed reeding wore, as the copper core was protected by the clad sticking so much farther out. and with so much less exposed metal to wear down, it would wear down considerably faster than normal.

when the casinos here used quarters they almost all had no, or next to no reeding left.

 

Finally... someone who understands what really happened to this coin!

 

I found a coin that is literally the exact same today at the bank. I created a thread with pictures, not realizing this one existed.

Mine is a 1985 D, the reeding is the same, inset slightly from the outer layers with fairly deep reeding, while the outside shows no evidence of ever having any.

http://www.cointalk.com/t189232/

I don't see how an acid bath would not have caused the inner core to be smooth like the outer layers. Why would there still be reeding? Also, you wouldn't achieve the same results from different acid baths, less/more inset, less/inconsistent reeding, etc..

 

former encased coin

 

care to elaborate for the novice?

 

After the acid bath both the clad layers and the copper core still showed the reeding since then circulation wear has removed the reeding from the cladding layers but the copper layer was protected from wear by the overhanging clad layers. So you have smooth clad layers with a reeded copper core.

 

so the culprit is a hanging clad, eh?

 

Absolutely correct.. but it appears we will never convince the "disbelievers". People... listen to me, Conder knows what he is talking about. Don't make this into something it is not. It is NOT an encased coin, it is NOT a planchet error... it is just a simple acid dipped coin that has wear to the clad layers. I've seen dozens of these.

Here's another thread showing the same so-called "error":

http://www.cointalk.com/t189232/

 

so "hanging clad" humor was a bit of a stretch then? yeah, i guess it was. i couldn't help it though! it was right there in front of me and i had to do something about it.

sorry, i try to find the fun in everything. sometimes the only one that finds it funny is me though.

 

Actually that was pretty funny. We need a little humor here now and then!

 

well since we've pretty much cleared this one up, would you mind taking a look at another quarter i've found with a (somewhat) similar issue? it's the 07 idaho partial missing clad? thread in this same folder. thanks!

 

I liked the hanging clad joke as well.

 

Mine is a 1965...so it is all silver. And you can still see the reed but inside the quarter.

 

Mine is a 1965...so it is all silver. And you can still see the reed but inside the quarter. So I believe this disproves the acid theory.

 

1965's are not all silver. They are coppernickel clad on a copper core. If the core on yours looks like silver then something was done to it after the acid soaking.

 

No, your correct, it does have copper in the middle. It's strange, however the case do you believe it worth anything at all? Just curious, going thru hard times and need a little help. I come across defects all the time working as a cashier. I buy them straight from my drawer.

 

It's damaged, after it was in circulation.

 

Sorry, but it is just worth it's face value of 25 cents. Might not even be worth that if you try to use it in a vending machine. If it has lost enough weight the machine might not accept it.