1978 "s" dcam uncirculated 0

[Tridmn]

Going to show full obverse and reverse, then want you to look at the mint mark. I took very close shot so you could see. That's why I put s in quotation marks.wont be able to put all 4 pick of both obverse and reverse along with mint marks. Both quarters look like the one I posted. Now time for mint marks. 

Edited September 8, 2019 by Tridmn

[Just Bob]

First, you might want to study the difference between "proof" and "uncirculated" coins, since they are not the same thing. Try this link: CLICK ME

As far as the mint mark: By 1978, the punch used for the "S" mint mark had been used to the point of looking like a blob. According to Variety Vista, this punch was used from 1941 to 1952, and again from 1974 to 1979.  (That link is HERE)

It was replaced in 1979.

[Tridmn]

So nothing special about the mint mark? Looks close, but I think mine looks more like a B, or even an S over D.

Edited September 8, 2019 by Tridmn

[Tridmn]

So these would be proofs, then not uncirculated? Considering the finish they have.

[Just Bob]

29 minutes ago, Tridmn said:

So nothing special about the mint mark? Looks close, but I think mine looks more like a B, or even an S over D.

here is a comparison photo

12 minutes ago, Tridmn said:

So these would be proofs, then not uncirculated? Considering the finish they have.

That is correct.

Edited September 8, 2019 by Just Bob
Tried inserting a link that did not work

[Tridmn]

S over d 1950

[Greenstang]

 

Quote

Looks close, but I think mine looks more like a B, or even an S over D.

It can't be a S over D as Proof coins were only struck in San Francisco. On your coins it looks like the mint worker stamping the dies got a little over zealous and stamped the MM a little deeper than usual so that the shoulders of the punch are showing.

[Tridmn]

9 minutes ago, Greenstang said:

 

It can't be a S over D as Proof coins were only struck in San Francisco. On your coins it looks like the mint worker stamping the dies got a little over zealous and stamped the MM a little deeper than usual so that the shoulders of the punch are showing.

So it would be a mint error then?

[Greenstang]

Quote

So it would be a mint error then?

No, errors are usually a one off. As this would be in the die, every coin minted from that die would be the same. It is not unlike having different MM locations from wherever they were punched on the dies. It's just that these were punched a little deeper than normal.

[Tridmn]

Burst my bubble again greenstang lol. 

19 minutes ago, Greenstang said:

No, errors are usually a one off. As this would be in the die, every coin minted from that die would be the same. It is not unlike having different MM locations from wherever they were punched on the dies. It's just that these were punched a little deeper than normal.

 

Edited September 9, 2019 by Tridmn

[Tridmn]

Still beautiful coins to add to collection.