1917/18s quarter

Discussion in 'Error Coins' started by Muzzman, Aug 20, 2020.

  1. Muzzman

    Muzzman Member

    First off, a metal detecting friend gave this to me and I'll tell why later after I see some input on this coin. I for one have no clue if it's real or fake and I'll explain that later also and maybe you'll understand why this coin has me confused and it might do the same with you. With all do respect, I'm open to hear your thoughts. It is or supposed to be a type 2
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Aug 20, 2020
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Peter Economakis

    Peter Economakis Well-Known Member

    The date looks recessed like a type one, but the back looks type2.
    Just my input from googling:oops: Then the 8 over 7 thing..
     
  4. ZoidMeister

    ZoidMeister Hamlet Squire of Tomfoolery . . . . .

    Another "real or fake" thread by Muzzman . . . . ?
     
  5. Oldhoopster

    Oldhoopster Member of the ANA since 1982

    I'll tell you what I think and how to confirm if it's real or fake after I hear your input. :facepalm:

    From your post. I'll tell why later after I see some input on this coin

    You and your friend certainly have interesting places to metal detect. Are they all surface finds or dug coins?
     
  6. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    I thought the back changed in 1917, and the date recess was later. I didn't think the two were related.

    As for the coin, it would appear to be the overdate, but something I do not like about the surfaces. This is without digging into the details of the coin more.
     
  7. ZoidMeister

    ZoidMeister Hamlet Squire of Tomfoolery . . . . .


    You will never get an answer to that, at least the truth. Anti-pro men are loath to self incriminate.

    Z
     
  8. Robert Ransom

    Robert Ransom Well-Known Member

    Don't have a clue. Quarters were never my schtick. How much longer do I have to hold my water?
     
  9. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    You are going to need sharper image of the obverse. From what you posted, I'm 95% certain it is counterfeit. I reserve the right to change my mind. o_O
     
    Kentucky and ZoidMeister like this.
  10. -jeffB

    -jeffB Greshams LEO Supporter

    You and your "friend" need to stop digging in places where people keep burying modern counterfeits.
     
  11. Bradley Trotter

    Bradley Trotter Well-Known Member

    Based on the OP's posting history alone, I'd say this coin is a fake. Not to mention, the surface wear and details seem off, which again leads me to it being a fake.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2020
    ZoidMeister likes this.
  12. Chris11111952

    Chris11111952 Member

    I consider myself somewhat of a noob but i'm glad "went" to Colorado a couple of weeks ago,and one of the online seminars I attended was "How to spot a fake" less than 5seconds I knew OP pic was a fake
     
    -jeffB and Randy Abercrombie like this.
  13. Mr.Q

    Mr.Q Well-Known Member

    First look at the coin appears fake. Further study and it still looks fake in my opinion.
     
  14. Muzzman

    Muzzman Member

    If you can't be respectful, don't reply on my stuff!
     
  15. Peter Economakis

    Peter Economakis Well-Known Member

    It's just strange that your postings are about most likely faked coins..
    Are you buying them for fun? A little more info would help..
     
    Evan Saltis and ZoidMeister like this.
  16. PlanoSteve

    PlanoSteve Well-Known Member

    Come on, guys! The date is clearly 191; & it's from the "s" mint. The San Francisco was not around back then. Perhaps someone in the ancients forum will know!? :jawdrop::D
     
  17. Muzzman

    Muzzman Member

    It's supposed to be the type 2. I'll reply back to you. You're not being rude like these people that are on here from Facebook. The reason my friend gave it to me is because it's not silver and because of that, he thinks it's fake. But when you look them up, you get conflicting reports on them. There is no 2 articles the same on them. One states they made both, 100% silver and 100% copper with the same dimensions and they both weigh the same 6.25 grams which can't happen because silver is heavier than copper. Another one states 90% silver with 10% copper weighs 6.25 grams. Another states 90% silver and 10% copper and weighs 6.30 grams. Another states silver. Another states 88.5% silver and 11.5 % nickel and weighs less. This is what has me confused. And for the type 2 on reverse ,3 stars under the eagle and that's what this has. Type 1 no stars under eagle. And thank you for your input.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2020
  18. Bilbo1

    Bilbo1 Member

    I know there’s a die marker somewhere. I’ll have to look it up.
     
  19. Mountain Man

    Mountain Man Supporter! Supporter

    Weight? Magnetic? Looks like a fake to me.
     
  20. Bilbo1

    Bilbo1 Member

    Genuine examples will display a die clash in the protected recesses near Liberty’s right knee, visible even in examples graded Good. The second diagnostic is a small pimple of extra metal above and the to the right of the final digit of the date. This diagnostic is less discernible on well circulated pieces.
     
  21. -jeffB

    -jeffB Greshams LEO Supporter

    That's all true, but this piece looks like a cartoon caricature of an SLQ. If I'm looking for a lost cat, and somebody shows me a stuffed sock-puppet toy, I don't need to check whether it's been microchipped.
     
    PlanoSteve and Randy Abercrombie like this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page