Worlds ugliest 1932 D quarter?

I recently purchased some coins which were basically sold for their silver content. Some of them were in really rough shape. Some were actually not too bad. This one is in terrible shape, unfortunately lol. I believe it is a 1932 D quarter but wanted to get some other opinions. If it is, I think I own the ugliest 1 on the planet! Which is ok by me, I've never owned a 32D so I'm excited I may have one. I collect on a tight budget.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Here's the front.

 

Front close up

 

Another of the reverse.

 

Is that a quarter? It kinda looks like gravel rash instead of a mm. That area is protected enough that I would think the olive branch would be worn down more before wear would reach the mm.

 

IMHO I believe it to be a 1933.

 

Yes that is a quarter haha. It looks like the letter D though. The pictures were taken with my phone so they aren't great. Using a magnifying glass it's more apparent that it's the letter D. They didn't make Washington quarters in 1933 but I'm not sure if your being sarcastic lol.

 

You can tell someone abused the coin pretty bad so maybe that is why it's more worn?

 

Why.....she's beautiful ❤️


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I can't even make myself see a mint mark.

 

She's def a looker. For those with a unique and exotic taste!

 

I think you are seeing a mirage rather than a mintmark. I think it's a Philly coin.

Chris

 

If you can figure out the date and mint mark, you may have a coin that a lowball collector would buy. Why they would I don't understand, but some will.

 

I appreciate your replies and thoughts thank you. I probably wouldn't sell it if it actually was a 32D. There's def something where the mint mark would be but as Homer pointed out with his picture it should be much more defined. I paid less than silver melt for this and the other quarters that came with it anyway so it's 1 I'll probably hold onto just for the heck of it lol.

 

Yup, no quarters in 1931 or 1933

 

It'd get PO-01 details at best due to the reverse scratches.

That reminds me, OP, cinch your staples down or get a self-cinching stapler. Your coins will thank you for it.

 

It doesn't appear that the date can be anything but a 1932.
I may see the ghost of a D mint mark, however, even in that condition, the
D would still be more legible. It is protected a little by the higher relief of the
other details and when it gets worn down, the mint mark has some protection
and is readable. As evidenced by Hommer's photo in post #12.

 

I concur with the collective wisdom of the board, and post here Exhibit 2: a 1936D in similarly spectacular condition. You will note that the D here is also clearly visible:

 

I hate to ruin the party, but I believe I have some trash that rivals it easily.