1891 Seated Quarter Dollar MPD or Not?

I respect your view as well as SuperDave ' s but again these are opinions. And again I'm sticking to mine.
And I believe that this is what I believe it to be . The OP may wish to consider sending it into Anacs for the re grade and variety . As the cost would be half of the fees than the other two grading services .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Realizing that by posting this next item that I'm 100% sure that most members will say no way. However no one yet has been able to give me a rock solid answer to as what it could be, or how it happen. This is an images of a 1862 H-10, you will notice below the 2 to the lower right there's another device. The reason I'm calling it a device as it is raised on the field, "not in the field". Again it is my opinion that it's a 2. It is the same type and shape of the type of the number 2 in the date.I first noticed it with a loop, and then using the scope took these images. The images have not been photo shopped in any way.

 

Well, although Conder is quite correct in asserting that it could be an overdate because there doesn't have to be only one, it is conclusively not the overdate that the OP posted, which is what I was reacting to. Beyond that, the images aren't clear enough to be drawing any conclusions. They would be clear enough to establish FS-301 if it were, but to define something new much higher quality would be required.

 

So if the coin is indeed not the MPD, how can it have all the other die markers as the MPD if it a different die as SuperDave pointed out?

That's what I don't get.

 

Well, the "die marker" mentioned regarding the 1 is clearly different on your coin - neither 1 is in the same place relative to a denticle as on the example coin you posted. And one would expect clashing on two different examples of a given coin to be in roughly the same place. FS-301 is certainly not the only clashed-die pair from that year.