I have this quarter.......

Perhaps you have heard of these people
http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/Coin/Detail/145423

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Gentlemen,

The Type A (normal) Reverse was used for normal business strike coins.

The Type B (proof) Reverse came about when the Mint used proof reverse dies for some business strike coins from 1956-1964 (P only).

EDIT: These are found with varying degrees of difficulty. Most common I've seen are 1957 and 1959 (1959's are notoriously found in mint sets with the Type B Reverse Franklin Halves - again, using proof reverse dies.)

I have personally found at least 200 Type B Reverse quarters in various grades and various dates.

The Type C (1965) Reverse came about when the Mint used some of the business strike reverse dies for the 1965 quarters on some 1964 D quarters.

EDIT: These are extremely difficult to find. I might own 5 of them so far (and will not sell them, even though I've had numerous offers to buy them if I ever change my mind.) Coins in similar condition to the OP's coin will sell on eBay for at least $20 (depending on where the starting bid is set) and usually around $40-65 raw/circulated. This is just from my personal observation.

I'll find some photos if we can stop arguing... I've found the previous link to be most unhelpful - pointing out minor details and ignoring the major differences. Again, I'll dig up some photos for you in the next few minutes.

 

Here are some examples of Type A (normal) reverses:





Note the general weakness in the leaves under the eagle, and the softness of the eagle's left (viewer's right) wing tip.


And some examples of Type B (proof) reverses:





Note the sharpness/boldness of the feather detail under the eagle, the sharp tip of the eagle's left wing, and how the A of DOLLAR touches the leaves. There is also a difference in the spacing of the letters ES in STATES, and this is commonly used as a diagnostic...even though the wing tip and A/leaf are much, much MUCH easier to see. These literally jump out at you when you are searching junk silver bins due to a circulation cameo effect (higher relief.)

And some examples of Type C (Rev of 1965) reverses:




Note the flatness of the leaves under the eagle, how they touch the eagle's tail feathers, and (although my two photos don't really show it that well) the tail feathers have a distinct center line not present in the Type A.

 

Thanks, defcat. Those posts were a lot more useful.

Still not going to get excited about it, but at least now I understand what we're talking about.

 

Like I said earlier, I will never understand why Mr. Wexler shows closeups of minor details when the big picture details are so much easier to spot. I've had so many people try to say to use the ES in STATES as a diagnostic - when looking at MOST eBay seller's photos, this area is extremely difficult to see. That pointy left wingtip? Like a cherrypicking North Star, even with blurry photos. Even easier in person.

 

I only posted the picture in an attempt to see if anyone caught the variety. Coins have a story to tell, if one is interested in learning. Sometimes we take for granted that everything appears the same so everything is the same, but if we look deeper and open our minds, there is a whole world of education one could gain on his own. Open mindedness will teach you how to spot counterfeits in our hobby without having to depend on someone else to do it for you.

 

I just saw that someone else had stated it but, the coin has the Reverse of the 1965 Design.

Folks need to be reminded that the production of 1964 dated coins continued into 1966 due to the coin shortage which existed at the time.

 

My count of circulated Type B quarters (I use the circulated ones because I had the UNC ones bulk graded by NGC and have sold many of them already, but I have yet to sell any of the circulated finds) right now, by year:

1956 - 8
1957 - 31
1958 - 3
1959 - 4 (this is a little misleading, as circulated 1959 Type B's are very hard for me to find, but UNC ones are very easy.)
1960 - 6
1961 - 11
1962 - 11
1963 - 31
1964 - 5

I just did a count and I have a total of 50 UNC Type B left on my website (not attempting in any way to self-promote, merely providing a count.) That's 160 I still own. Reference that with the 5 Type C I've found and maybe the picture of relative scarcity comes a little clearer into focus.

 

Hardly a "microscopic variety" my friend as indicated by stldanceartists quick reply.

The presumption of rarity is directly related to this possibly being a one die rarity with few being found by active collectors who know that even grody examples sell for $100 or more which is not a bad profit considering that most folks believe that are only worth $3.50+ in silver value.

 

I think maybe he was responding to Mr. Wexler's diagnostics on his site, which focus more on tiny die scratches and gouges?

 

I think that this comment was unnecessary which makes my comment unnecessary.

 

All those responsible for the creation of the two unnecessary comments have been sacked.

 

Damn you are rude. The guy just ask what was special about the coin and you come back with that.

 

I apologize for my post, but you would have to be in my seat to realize where it came from.

This comment has about the same text that he has posted on about every coin that I have posted on this board, just rubbed me the wrong way.

 

I don't know if this will help but basically, the leaves were strengthened in the Reverse of 1965 with the annotated leaves coming to sharp, high relief points.
What does not show is that the leaf tip immediately to the viewers right of the Eagles Tail feathers extends above those tail feathers and comes to a sharp point.

The easiest method of discerning the difference between the Type A Reverse (RDV-001) and the Type C Reverse (RDV-003) is by comparing the typical 1964 Washington coin with a 1965. Notice that, regardless of wear, the Leaves on the 1965 always appear strong.



I do have a hand out that was presented by James Wiles at an ANA Presentation in 2003 that describes the different Washing Quarter Types.
Some are indeed minute but the the Washington Quarter enthusiast, they are quite significant as they do represent design changes which is at the very heart of a Variety Collector.

I'll try to attach the pdf flyer to this response.

 

PCGS is certainly NOT my idea of someone I would rely upon for variety information since there are MANY significant die varieties abnd design varieties which they REFUSE to recognize until they are picked up by the CPG.

IMO, the variety specialists reside at CONECA not to mention the fact that PCGS frequently gets it wrong anyway.

For example, PCGS does not recognize nor will they slab a series of significant rarieties in the Wahsington Quarter Arena.

Namely the 1969-D through 1972-D CnClad Washingtons with the Proof Reverse (Type H). These coins are incredibly expensive for the Washington Enthusiast who truly know full well their rarity.

 

Lee, thanks for posting that handout. I think most of those images are included in the CPG, yes? Still, though...I think it's still a "missing the forest for the trees" situation. Lots of closeups of intricate details, but no wider view that makes it easier to spot based on the sum of the parts. JMHO

 

I rarely go to their site, in fact only occasionally to get some sort of rarity of population. Though they do have great pictures.

 

If your posts leave me perplexed and with a lot of questions, that's not my fault. I'll admit, I haven't followed you very closely and can't remember many of your threads. In this thread, I merely asked you to explain the significance of your post, which others have done for you. I never meant to antagonize, which you seem to think I have done. (I can't speak for other threads, in which you imply I have a repeated pattern of antagonistic behavior)

Perhaps you and I have very different philosophies, very different experiences, and very different knowledge. I generally expect that a thread is going to teach me something, share some knowledge, explain something, or benefit me in some way (I expect that when I post, I will fulfill one of those goals for someone else - the standard is for me as well as for everyone else). When a post is just a picture with zero explanation, I'll admit that leaves me frustrated. When I ask questions about your picture, it is because I want to learn more. I don't know everything, and never will. Perhaps my questions were not phrased exactly to your liking? Perhaps I came across as an asshole? It's not the first time, and it won't be the last. However, I think we've had a serious misunderstanding in this thread (and we've apparently had one for a while).

So, thanks to everyone who has shared knowledge in this thread.

 

Like I said, I apologize, for the misunderstanding. It wasn't the questions that caused my post. I will never, ever, call or insinuate that what someone collects is junk, it's their hobby, not mine.