Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;John Herman Buckendahl, post: 3590103, member: 104819&quot;]My camera does not do this piece justice, so what is obvious to me is apparently not as popular as I had originally expected it to be on here. However, I have been an avid collector going on around 5 years or so now, and would like to think that I have developed a familiarity with the physical properties of the coins that I am interested in sufficiently enough to be able to properly identify post mint damage which had occured in such an extensive and dramatic fashion, regardless of the means. It would not be an issue that I would introduce to this forum had I not exhausted my resources towards identifying the cause of the damage on this quarter, and the suggestions of &quot;garbage disposal&quot; or &quot;lawnmower&quot; would definitely be of a class of post mint damage that I have already been able to eliminate as the possible means for which this has happened. Along the lines of one of the replies that I received to my post, that the only error is in automatically assuming that the damage was done at the mint, so would be automatically assuming that a person new to this forum is also new enough not to recognize obvious forms of post mint damage. Besides, the conclusion that I drew was not automatic, as I have spent months looking at this thing, but I did state that it was obvious. So, considering the overwhelming response to my original post, let me rephrase my question by asking &quot;Can the damage seen in the pictures be the product of any of the processes performed in the mint that the quarter was subjected to? Is it possible for the mint, and the mint only, to produce a coin with errors that are consistent with the ones shown in these pictures?&quot;[/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