Part 2!! 1957 D/D/D WASHINGTON QUARTER. Is it? Catalog questions

Ok, so here are some pics of this 57 Quarter with, what looks to me anyways, is 3 D's, RPM. Now if all agree, 1) How could one guy have it listed and not the other? Unless I dont understand the process and you can only list an item YOU have specifically examined yourself, which i could kinda understand but would seem redundant and go against attaining a complete list. 2) How does a 2 punch RPM cross ref to a 3 punch? Different items imo. So what do yall think? Tripple D RPM? Thanks again lads and lasses, take a look!!! And grab your.....glasses!!!!! Lol....yup...been a long week

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It's md with some extra doubling appearing due to the light reflection. Photograph it with the light coming from a different direction and it will probably disappear.

 

Jim, If you look at the image it 'appears ' there are underlying 2 'D' as you can see 3 levels of the bottom , but only the one level of the top of the D,If the other 2 'D' were there they would fill up or show as they should be in the 'hole' in the D, I also think it is MD in that area. IMO as I just see a flat photograph and not in hand. Jim

 

It is so frustrating trying to get accurate and informative photographs of many of these occurances that can clearlt be seen through a loop with coin in hand. Im litterally building a pile of coin strangeness here that I want to post but just HATE trying to get a useful image. Im finally giving in and buying a coin microscope. Its the only way!!! Lol...
So that evil DD imposter MD ya think, huh? Lol....I had the same thought when I first came across this, but dismissed it because A) wexler listed a DDD
B) the 2nd denver quarter in the set is the same
C) id just never seen MD before that had this appearance
D) in hand it dosent look as machine doubleyish...lol
Taking the pic like I did with the glare was the only way I could get it to show well at all on my garbage cel phone...BUT!!!! It very well may be just that. These things get a lil tricky from time to time...either way, thank yall for your input and ill revisit this another day when I get a better photo setup. Thanks again!!!

 

One more thing. What about the whole wexler shows things Coneca dosent and vice versa thing? The goal for one of these 2 has to be to assemble as complete and accurate a database as possible, and i find it hard to believe they have to independently examine every error ever to put it on their list. And Im still not clear how a DDD cross references to a DD. Can anyone explain this to me a little more? Thanks guys. Really appreciate your time...

 

Here is one of the most MD mint marks I have of an "S" mint cent. They occurred quite often then.

 

Just as few on this forum verify such without good photos, a new entry would almost gave to be verifies in hand by eye by anyone. You will find that major TPG only want to do mostly non-controversial listing. I do not try to identify any possibles after 1995 due to the use of singles squeeze die formation , which is another story Who ever said D/D/D disagreed with who said D/D, There is money in grading such though. Good Evening, Jim

 

I have to agree with you there on the single squeeze "doubled dies". Yes, there can appear to be "doubling" or added thickness to traditional focal points but being the first to put your reputation on the line to classify such would absolutely want to be done with an abundance of care. But with Wexler and Coneca being at the top of the vareity classification foodchain, i would think if one was ok with a listing, the other should be and add it to their list. I guess im just wishing there was 1 reliable master list to go on is all. Not that simple i guess...lol...ok...thanks