Which of these cois has an added mint mark?

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by Insider, May 12, 2021.

?

Which image shows an added mint mark?

Poll closed May 14, 2021.
  1. 1. The "O"

    9 vote(s)
    32.1%
  2. 2. The "D"

    6 vote(s)
    21.4%
  3. 3. Both!

    13 vote(s)
    46.4%
  1. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. CoinCorgi

    CoinCorgi Derp, derp, derp!

  4. Randy Abercrombie

    Randy Abercrombie Supporter! Supporter

    I am going to watch this one from the sideline. I have a 1916-D with an added mintmark and the only way I can tell is because it is very slightly misplaced.
     
  5. C-B-D

    C-B-D Well-Known Member

    First impression is the D. Roughness around the mintmark could be glue residue? The O coin has some smoothing around the mintmark but that could be the natural surface where wear didn’t touch it, since it’s right up against and around the mintmark and luster is often protected up against and around those areas. The pics are clear but not dynamic. But I’ll risk it and settle on the D.
     
  6. GH#75

    GH#75 Well-Known Member

    I'm going to go with the D. It looks wrong
     
  7. potty dollar 1878

    potty dollar 1878 Well-Known Member

    I'm going to be the odd one and just say both,im %99 sure for the D.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2021
  8. cpm9ball

    cpm9ball CANNOT RE-MEMBER

    To me, the enlarged base of the "D" just doesn't look original. It seems to have a "line of demarcation" along the perimeter. I wouldn't expect to see this even if it was an RPM or machine doubling. Of course, I'm probably way off base.
     
  9. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    The D I recognize I believe from the 32 D quarter. It always has that indented look to it. The O I do not see anything wrong with it at first blush, but I am assuming one is added so I went with it. Also, the edges around the O seemed messed with, which I would assume they would do to hide their "work".
     
  10. ToughCOINS

    ToughCOINS Dealer Member Moderator

    Number one looks added . . . number two looks chased.

    Edit: . . . I've reconsidered coin number two . . . I see die lines continuing through the suspicious looking field surrounding the mintmark, and believe this coin to be strange looking, but unaltered.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2021
    Beefer518 likes this.
  11. expat

    expat Remember you are unique, just like everyone else Supporter

    I have gone for both. The 1st one has MD/DDD all over except the O and if you are going to add a MM then putting a D on a Philly quarter is the obvious choice when you consider how relatively few 1932 D were struck
     
  12. longshot

    longshot Enthusiast Supporter

    Dunno...but I've always heard if the mm looks bad on a 1932 quarter, its probably good. It does kind of look like those I've seen, sitting in a depression, though I guess there's no proof that it's a '32.

    The area around the O looks hazy or smoothed, I'm guessing that one is bad.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2021
  13. Publius2

    Publius2 Well-Known Member

    I write before I read the other responses. I voted "both".

    The "O" is surrounded by an unnaturally smooth periphery in the field that does not match the field outside that periphery. If this is a "glued-on" mintmark it looks pretty well done since I cannot detect any traces of glue or join mark. Of course, it is possible that a "D" or "S" mintmark was removed and the area smoothed before the "O" was added.

    The "D" likewise is surrounded by a field that completely differs in appearance from the fields outside that periphery. In this case, it looks like a two-stage field. Very close to the MM is an area to the top and right side that looks markedly different than the area further away. The whole affected area has a crude look to it. And the MM itself looks worn/damaged more than the visible devices would indicate is appropriate.
     
    bradgator2 likes this.
  14. Publius2

    Publius2 Well-Known Member

    Good pickup @expat. I missed that.
     
  15. longnine009

    longnine009 Most Exalted Excellency Supporter

    There is something at 5:30 on the O mintmark that may be excess glue/solder. Unless it's just the photo.
     
  16. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    You are looking at reflected light that makes a genuine coin look MD.
     
    expat likes this.
  17. desertgem

    desertgem MODERATOR Senior Errer Collecktor Moderator

    The first one ( O) as the lines original on the other area of the coin disappear around and through the mm. I've been wrong before though. Jim
     
  18. serdogthehound

    serdogthehound Well-Known Member

    The D for sure but the O looks a bit off
     
  19. Mountain Man

    Mountain Man Supporter! Supporter

    I have to sit this one out as I'm too dumb to know what a cois is.
     
    Kentucky and CoinCorgi like this.
  20. ksparrow

    ksparrow Coin Hoarder Supporter

    I think the O is added as it's very smooth around the MM. The D has die polish lines right up to the letter.
     
  21. Treashunt

    Treashunt The Other Frank

    Both.

    enough said.

    :)
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page