Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;cladking, post: 800309, member: 68&quot;]I&#039;m not sure I&#039;ve noticed the reverses are necessarily worse than the obverses but they are certainly bad.&nbsp; Mint quality was getting pretty good by 1982 and you could find a few gems made for circulation.&nbsp; But then 1981 most of the quarters had unattractive surfaces and they used the dies way too long on the &#039;82 and &#039;83 issues so these were major setbacks in the generally improving mint quality.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>They did change the contour of the obverse die a little in &#039;83 which might account for what you&#039;re saying.&nbsp; In &#039;82 the obverse fields were a little flatter and there was a more even curve to it.&nbsp; In &#039;83 most of this curve was concentrated in a narrower region a little closer to the rim.&nbsp; This would affect reverse metal flow but I&#039;ll have to keep my eyes open for it to confirm or deny a significant difference.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>The &#039;66 quarters were some of the worst.&nbsp; A lot of these were struck by extremely worn dies that barely even hit the planchet.&nbsp; They had as much detail as a VG in some cases.&nbsp; A lot of the extremely worn looking early quarters were actually just horrid strikes.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in