Nice multi error quarter Any ideas as to its value

Recently purchased this neat quarter any idea as to its value.
Thanks

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

No idea on it's value, but it sure is cool!!

 

I believe that is a 'Cud', but it looks like 2 'cuds'. More experienced opinions will follow. I never saw 2 cuds on one coin.

 

That is pretty cool!

Speedy

 

Cool coin benk1234. The obverse is definitely a cud, but I'm not sure about the reverse. Could be a floating cud, or a strike through. Will have to defer to Alice (in Wonderland) on this one "Curiouser and curiouser".

 

What are the odds of seeing 2 of these in the same week?

Check this out Same Error on eBay!!

 

Uh.....that makes me wonder...could this type of error be "made"

Speedy

 

Depending on how long the die was used after it broke, there could be lots of similar cuds.

Charlie

 

Good question, one I asked myself. At first I thought benk1234 was selling it already, but it's not the same coin. Very interesting.......

 

That coin is very similar to the one I have only mine does not have the obverse scratches. I will keep an eye on that one to see if it sells or not. Thanks for the info. If his is AU-55 mine surely is MS-60 (HAHA).

 

Neat coin with alot going on.

 

OK, guys, I'll play Devil's Advocate on this one.

At first glance I thought it was a great looking error coin, but after the ebay auction comparison, I am not so sure. Based on my knowledge of errors, here are some opinions.

First off, that reverse thing would not be a cud, I believe, as cuds protrude above the design, whereas that error has a cut/groove into the coin. A cud does not impress into a coin, but rises above the normal surface. It could in theory be a defective planchet, but look closely. That groove/cut is very distinct and deep. If the coin were struck those two pieces would have fused together better. There would not be a separation that wide. The line would still be visibly, but not like that.

As for the cud, it looks fine, except that I have never seen a cud with a depressed area in the center. Again, by definition, a cud allows metal to rise unsupported - why would the cud be highest at the edge? A cud is rounder.

The reverse of the cud. OK at first glance, but seems to look a bit funny on the right side of the weak area - like someone whizzed away the detail with a grinding wheel - there is a slight trough effect that extends past the area where the detail at the rim was struck.

My verdict: FAKE. The cud is well done but either solder or "liquid metal" putty, which shrunk slightly when it cooled/dried, hence the depression. The reverse of the cud was done by polishing away the detail. The reverse error was cut with a fine tool (Dremel tool) hence the clearly defined cut.

These are just my ramblings, so feel free to disagree. BTW, I hope to get a Dremel tool for Chrsitmas, largely to mess with coins, as well as other projects. None of the coin stuff will be meant to deceive, but I will see what effects I can come up with. If I can figure out a solder/putty process to make a cud, I'll bet I can recreate this particlar "error".

 

With the amount of wear, this coin would have passed maybe hundreds of thousands of times, it's a wonder nobody would have picked it from circulation.

 

OK JBK the pics are tough to show the coin but I posted 2 more photos that may help. The reverse cud is raised above the regular surface and the line shows up more clearly than it really is due to the lighting on the coin. The front cud is does not appear to be staright across not depressed. I also belive it is probabbly genuine since a very close coin is also being offered on ebay. Its hard to say how many quarters may have gotten in to circulation before the mint caught the error. As far as being very highly circulated I would say the dies were well wore from over use, cutting down on the detail. Just my opinion though. I will take it to the coin shop I go to and see what the owner says. I will let you know. Thanks for your opinion I appreciate all help I can get.

 

I think you could apply "melted quarter" over one side and call it an error, but-- I don't know.

 

This one is out of my perview

Having said that, I don't believe in coincidence....While it is possible, it is not probable. My experience says this is an altered coin. I would not buy it even if there is a small chance it is genuine.

 

Thanks for the additional photos. (They were all good shots, BTW).

I now see the REAL effect on the reverse - the first photo had me convinced it was a groove, but the second photo shows it clearly as a retained cud.

It is still VERY suspicious that two almost identical errors show up at once, but, heh, it is entirely possible. I now say it is likely genuine, and if you haven't gotten me anything for Christmas yet, you could just send me the quarter.

I would be curious as to value. The missing date affects it, but the two different variety cuds pushes the value back up. Anyone got any numbers?

 

Gonna stick with the "genuine" crew on this one. Faking via metal puddy and abrassion is possible, but making a strike stronger opposite the cud is a bit difficult. Call the ??? (forget its name, begins with an L I think) effect. To see what I mean look at the obverse images. The rim and lettering above washington's head is higher/stronger as it should be. Cud obverse/retained cud reverse.