Wafer thin 1940 D Washington quarter.

[coinsandmedals]

I’m not sure what to make of this quarter, its wafer thin and yet still has design details. I have placed another quarter of the same year in the pictures for comparison. The quarter in question is a 1941D, the coin is obviously much thinner than that of a normal quarter, the middle of the coin is just as thin as the rims, and the diameter is the same as the normal quarter. To me it looks like a well-worn normal quarter just based of the obverse and reverse, however the coin is too thin to just be simply worn. I would guess for the coin to be that thin from circulation the design on the obverse and reverse would have to be completely gone. Any suggestion as to what may have caused this, any help would be useful.

[michael]

if the coin is genuine i think it is an odd/abnormal wear pattern on the edges of the coin causing this as i think just the edges are thinner based on the huge wear pattern on the rims of the coin

 

 

hmmmmmmmmmmmm let me guess

 

the coin had abnormal wear pattern

 

so

 

a coin constantly used in slot machine's for some years

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

if the coin is not genuine then a contemporary counterfeit

[Coindude]

The circumference looks different although the reeding is there. Maybe a quarter struck on a dime planchet? Or a quarter struck on dime stock? Looks silver as well. Not sure what to make of it to be honest.

[coinsandmedals]

Yeah, it is a really odd coin. I don’t have any doubts that the coin is genuine, and the center of the coin is the same thickness as the edges. I placed this quarter on top of the other and it fits exactly overtop of the other, with just a hair of room, and I literally mean a hair! The idea of it being used in a slot machine is interesting, but I don’t see how the coin would be so thin. Coindude brings up a good idea that it may have been a quarter struck on a dime planchet, which would explain how thin the coin is, but would the details be that smoothed out? Thanks for the replies, please keep the suggestions coming!

[ldhair]

Do you have the weight of the coin.

[coinman1794]

I’m not sure what to make of this quarter, its wafer thin and yet still has design details. I have placed another quarter of the same year in the pictures for comparison. The quarter in question is a 1941D, the coin is obviously much thinner than that of a normal quarter, the middle of the coin is just as thin as the rims, and the diameter is the same as the normal quarter. To me it looks like a well-worn normal quarter just based of the obverse and reverse, however the coin is too thin to just be simply worn. I would guess for the coin to be that thin from circulation the design on the obverse and reverse would have to be completely gone. Any suggestion as to what may have caused this, any help would be useful.

 

Looks to me like a "MINT ERROR, Stuck on Dime Stock." A quarter planchet punched on dime stock and then struck. The underweight planchet does not contain enough metal to fill the dies.

[coinsandmedals]

That seems to be the most logical explanation coinman1794, is it typical to see such poor details on coins produced like that? Idhair, unfortunately I don’t have any way of weighing the coin right now but I might be able to get to the post office on Tuesday and see if I can get an accurate weight there. Thanks for the help thus far, it really helps. Does anyone know if these kinds of errors are hard to find, and so is this something that NGC would encapsulate?

[ldhair]

I'm not sure the PO will give you a weight that will be helpful. Try a coin shop or jewelry store.

[michael]

yes i think you got a washington quarter struck on a dime planchet and i think

 

to see the date and mintmark for sure is rare

 

yes ngc will certify this easily

 

here look at this

 

http://www.davidlawrence.com/inventory/viewitem.cfm/inventory/307553/inm/Mint-Error%3A-1953-25c-PCGS-AU58-%28Struck-on-Silver-Dime-Planchet%29/snm/Washington-Quarters-%281932-98%29/gnm/Quarters/lotid/899135

 

 

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=washington+quarter+struck+on+a+silver+dime+planchet&qpvt=washington+quarter+struck+on+a+silver+dime+planchet&FORM=IGRE

 

 

 

[michael]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Washington-S-Mint-Silver-Quarter-struck-on-a-Silver-Dime-Planchet-NGC-AU58-/330445928529

 

 

http://stacksbowers.com/Auctions/AuctionLot.aspx?LotID=455071

[TonerGuy]

It looks to big to be a US dime planchet...

 

Might be a foreign planchet though. I would spend the money and submit it just to get an expert opinion.

 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

It is not struck on a dime planchet - the planchet is the actual disk of metal which has been punched out and is ready for striking. It will have a smaller diameter and will thus have missing details.

 

It could, however, be struck on dime stock. The metal strip is fed into the punching machine and a planchet of the correct diameter, wrong thickness, is punched out. When it is struck, the dies are spaced wider than the planchet and not all of the details are brought up. There are several 1970D quarters known which are struck on dime stock.

[bsshog40]

I agree with jason. If it were on a dime planchet, details would be missing and I don't think the press would spread the planchet enough to accommodate all of the Qtr details. Probably dime stock as he mentioned.

[coinsandmedals]

Struck on dime stock, alright I can see how that makes logical sense seeing how the details are so spread out. I looked into the whole struck on a dime planchet and all of those coins were much smaller and lacked a great amount of detail, unlike this coin that appears to be struck to normal diameter. Are these kinds of mint errors rare, and once again is this something that NGC would encapsulate?

[physics-fan3.14]

Are these kinds of mint errors rare, and once again is this something that NGC would encapsulate?

 

Yes.

 

And, yes.

[WoodenJefferson]

OK, I'm in the dime stock thickness run through the quarter planchet punch press, with a sidebar of quarter stock that fully split (full clam shell) in two.

[Conder101]

Just another coin that has been soaked in acid. Not an error, PMD.

[coinman1794]

That seems to be the most logical explanation coinman1794, is it typical to see such poor details on coins produced like that? Idhair, unfortunately I don’t have any way of weighing the coin right now but I might be able to get to the post office on Tuesday and see if I can get an accurate weight there. Thanks for the help thus far, it really helps. Does anyone know if these kinds of errors are hard to find, and so is this something that NGC would encapsulate?

 

Yes, the underweight planchet, produced on dime stock, does not contain enough metal to flow completely into the dies, and therefore, cannot bring up the entire design. This piece is also heavily worn. They are very scarce and error collectors get excited over them.

[coinman_23885]

I agree with jason. If it were on a dime planchet, details would be missing and I don't think the press would spread the planchet enough to accommodate all of the Qtr details. Probably dime stock as he mentioned.

 

I agree with this and would add that it could alternatively be struck on a foreign planchet.

 

With regards to Condor, why do you think it has been treated with acid? Wouldn't there be more damage to the details had it been treated? The acid would have to eat through a lot of metal to get to this thickness, and I would expect the coin to look pitted, no?

[physics-fan3.14]

I agree with jason. If it were on a dime planchet, details would be missing and I don't think the press would spread the planchet enough to accommodate all of the Qtr details. Probably dime stock as he mentioned.

 

I agree with this and would add that it could alternatively be struck on a foreign planchet.

 

With regards to Condor, why do you think it has been treated with acid? Wouldn't there be more damage to the details had it been treated? The acid would have to eat through a lot of metal to get to this thickness, and I would expect the coin to look pitted, no?

 

Yes, a coin which had been soaked in acid to this point would show serious pitting, erosion of details, and evidence of having been acid treated. This coin shows no evidence that I can see of being acid treated. Further, acid would affect all three sides - the diameter would be significantly affected as well.

[Coindude]

I have seen a cent that was treated in acid that was super thin. The radius was not affected as much as you might think. On the other hand, there was severe pitting and there was no doubt that it had been treated with acid.

 

The acid theory is plausible but unlikely. Dime planchet is not possible as the coin would be much smaller in diameter. Dime stock so far is probably the most likely possibility but that does not account for the difference in diameter however slight. I believe that's where Conder came up with the acid treatment theory.

 

I think it should be sent in and see what the pros think. I'll start with an offer of $5 towards the grading fee.... what say you?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

if the coin is genuine i think it is an odd/abnormal wear pattern on the edges of the coin causing this as i think just the edges are thinner based on the huge wear pattern on the rims of the coin

 

 

hmmmmmmmmmmmm let me guess

 

the coin had abnormal wear pattern

 

so

 

a coin constantly used in slot machine's for some years

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

if the coin is not genuine then a contemporary counterfeit

 

I think you are correct below the line, Michael.

[coinsandmedals]

Alright, now I’m really lost. So the idea of it being struck on dime stock is not plausible because the coin would be much smaller? Sorry for the all the questions guys but I’m honestly completely lost here, as far as the acid soak there are no signs of acid treatment. I would also like to point out that the coin is most definitely made of silver, and not any other material. I know the next question is if I tested the coin, no I didn’t but when you deal with enough of silver to begin to develop an “eye” and “touch” for what is and isn’t right. I would be very happy to post more/better pictures as well as pictures of any particular details that you guys may need. I wish I could send this coin in now, but funds are rather limited after my last few purchases, so this will have to be number one on my next submission! I have no question as to the authenticity of the coin, other than the fact that the coin is insanely thin there aren’t any unusual features about the coin. Thank so much for all the replies, the suggestions have been very helpful so far. I did not have tie today between work and classes to get somewhere with an accurate scale but I will try to do so tomorrow.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

The pictures,would suggest that it is possible the coin was already "tested".

[coinsandmedals]

Very true, the coin is rather messed up looking!

[Conder101]

We'll wait for him to send it in, but I stand by my opinion. I have seen too many acid soaked coins.

[A.Phillips]

Interesting piece and theories... Looking forward to get a result from an expert later on.

[AegisIII]

I'll also have to go with acid treated. The diameter is clearly smaller than the normal coin. In additional, the reverse design has clearly become fuzzy/blurred, consistent with acid but not a weak strike due to any sort of thin planchet. I think it likely continued to circulate after it was treated.

[A.Phillips]

But a tone will be present on silver quarter after being treated by acid?

[coinsandmedals]

Sorry for the bad picture but it is the best I can do, I put the thin quarter on top of the normal quarter from the previous pictures. There is a slight difference in diameter which can be seen in the picture, most notably from the “B” to about the midpoint between the “4” and the “1”. I will try to get a better picture; I didn’t notice this when I first posted the coin, or I would have mentioned it must have been the different lighting when I first looked at the coin. I hope this helps, I honestly don’t think the coin has been treated with acid it doesn’t have the typical surface conditions of a coin that has been treated with acid.