Bicentennial Quarter Error?

I am working on getting a non magnified image to go along with this, but I found this Denver mint bicentennial quarter and was wondering if it's an error or not. the lettering all seems strong as does the reeding on the edge but the cameo is very smooth, but doesn't appear to worn down. It is similar on the back where the central design seems a bit weak, and the drummer's face seems smooshed in.

Any ideas?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I believe what you're seeing
is just contact marks from it
being in circulation.

That's what his face looks like -
the 'smooshed' area is flattened
a bit from circulation contact.

 

Please post full pictures of the obverse and the reverse. I also say circulation wear and tear.

 

I'm just saying circulation wear. And cameo can only be on proof coins, it is the white / grainy surface made by sandblasting certain designs.

 

Here are full coin pictures

 

I still think it's just well circulated.

 

for reference I just took the picture for something else, so you see what cameo is. if your talking about the images on a coin those are called devices, you coin has wear.

 

It must have worn rather oddly then, the edge reeding has almost no wear.

I did just measure the edge thickness and it's only barely 1mm thick.

 

and this is what they look like new. business strike.

 

Now you can look at your coin and compare, I Think there is plenty of wear on the edges of your coin, from the pictures.

 

for your reference, I very quickly highlighted in red many of the contact hits one of your images shows. This shows the types of general circulation wear and tear a coin goes through.

 

okay, just wear and tear then. c'est la vie

Thanks for the feedback everyone