New 1952 proof washington quarter error?
0

8 posts in this topic

4 posts

I submitted two 1952 washington proof quarters for grading and variety designation. NGC did not recognize the error. Does anyone know were I can inquire of other unique errors that are not recognized by the mainstream graders? 

These quarters were from two proof sets purchased together with a history of being stored for decades together and the report of being purchased together originally.

In looking for the superbird, I found this error lower between the eagles legs mid way from the tallons. It is the exact same on both quarters leading me to suspect this is on more coins.  any suggestions on how to get this recognized as well would be helpful. It is a cool find and I'm excited to pursue .

cajones variety 1952 proof quarter-ccfopt-1.jpg

cajones variety 1952 proof quarter 2-ccfopt.jpg

cajones varity1952 proof quarter3-ccfopt.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
521 posts

If it is a die crack, which I can't verify from your photos, it is not considered a variety worth cataloguing by a TPG.  It also would be of very little interest to other collectors, and you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who would pay a premium for it.  You might even find that it commands a lower price due to the fact collectors of this proof likely prefer premium examples with superior eye appeal.  A die crack would detract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,843 posts
4 hours ago, skippy said:

If it is a die crack, which I can't verify from your photos, it is not considered a variety worth cataloguing by a TPG.  It also would be of very little interest to other collectors, and you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who would pay a premium for it.  You might even find that it commands a lower price due to the fact collectors of this proof likely prefer premium examples with superior eye appeal.  A die crack would detract.

It looks like a possible lint-mark to me. Either way, it would not be considered an error or command a premium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,277 posts

Mark is correct on both points---lint impression, no value.

The only instance where collectors seek a link impression is the so-called Superbird 1952 proof quarter. It seems pretty silly to me, but we get a lot of them submitted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
149 posts

+1, Agree with Mark.  Interestingly enough it somewhat resembles the backwards question mark which signifies the S in Superbird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
886 posts

Mine is not the Superbird variety and does not have the lint mark. Its an early die state with nice black and white look in 67 Cameo plastic. I'm sure the lint mark would strike away and could show in multiple coins but wow how rare to have more than one of nearly same die state. One coin would have the lint struck in !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
886 posts

Would like to see die summary and pairing for '50 to '64 proofs like in Roger Burdette book for '36 to '42 proofs. Beyond Rick Tomaska books are there any other works that consider this ? With 20 or so die pairs there must be many similar die varieties way too numerous to count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,159 posts
On 5/2/2018 at 8:41 PM, numisport said:

Would like to see die summary and pairing for '50 to '64 proofs like in Roger Burdette book for '36 to '42 proofs.

Regrettably, the necessary data do not seem to exist for 1950-64 proofs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0