1959-P WASHINGTON QUARTER

[Merlin8971]

Here are some photos of a 1959-P Washington quarter which show doubling of the "In God We Trust."

This doubling looks exactly like the photo in Cherrypickers Volume II page 190(top), under 1959, PROOF doubled die obverse. The photos in Cherrypickers show doubling without the "split serifs" so famously touted on this site as a requirement for a true doubled die obverse.

Although I doubt if the Proof die was used with this coin, the doubling almost exactly matches the photo on page 190 of Cherrypickers.

Any thoughts or discussion?

[Merlin8971]

Perhaps

Perhaps the photo in Cherrypickers I referenced will stir some conversation.

[jay4202472000]

Sorry Merlin, I just not seeing doubling close to the CPG photo.

[Merlin8971]

Really?

Maybe this will help you........the photo shows WITH BLUE ARROWS the secondary die edges of the doubling and the RED ARROWS show the primary (or higher lettering).

Does this photo make it clearer to you?

[jay4202472000]

Yes, I see the "doubling", it just doesn't look like the CPG picture you posted. It looks more like die deterioration doubling to me. That's just my opinion, I would wait for someone more qualified than myself before giving up on it though. Good luck!

[Merlin8971]

OH

Oh, OK. Thank you for your response Jay. I appreciate that.

I guess I do not see any die deteriation on the rest of the coin, but who knows?

The CPG photo also is another example of die doubling that DOES NOT APPEAR TO ME that there are any split serifs, yet it is a doubled die. This is the part I am trying to get a handle on understanding.

[19Lyds]

Oh, OK. Thank you for your response Jay. I appreciate that.

I guess I do not see any die deteriation on the rest of the coin, but who knows?

The CPG photo also is another example of die doubling that DOES NOT APPEAR TO ME that there are any split serifs, yet it is a doubled die. This is the part I am trying to get a handle on understanding.

Oh Kay.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the DDO in the CPG is a Proof coin while yours is not. Right?

As such, your coin could not possibly be the FS-101 in the CPG.

Right??

Additionally, perhaps if you adjusted the lighting on your photos to highlight the "top" of the lettering, it would make t easier to figure out exactly what you are seeing.

What I normally do is turn the coin until the lighting is correct.

[Merlin8971]

19Lyds

Hello:

Thank you for your response. You are correct in that the CPG shows a 1959 Proof coin. Now, I must figure out IF I have a Proof coin, or if possibly a Proof obverse was used to produce a business strike coin. As in the 1969 and 1970 Roosevelt dimes with proof reverse, the mint did use the proof reverse to produce those coins. Did they do it in 1959? Probably not, but who knows, other than the experts.

I agree that if this coin is not a proof (I would say it is not, however any die markings that would identify the proof obverse die would be a help), nor is the obverse a proof die, then it is correct that it cannot be a FS-101 as in the CPG. However, since it does look very similar to the FS-101, is it possible that there was a double die of the business strike.

I agree that lighting is an issue if not held correctly within that light. The tungsten lighting I used was about a 20 degree angle to the north from the coin lying flat and the camera was about 10 degrees south of the coin lying flat. I do usually take several photos rotating the coin as I go. I use the 12 oclock, 3 oclock, 6 oclock, and 9 oclock positions.

I must say, I was a rather good photographer earlier in my life with numerous cameras and lenses, and I developed my own film and photos in my darkroom, but either I forgot a lot of the techiques or photographing coins is an especially difficult task. I would opt for the latter.

Alas, if I had the 3D photo program that Mr. Parkhurst uses so expertly I could tell more. I must investigate that further. I am trying to figure out if the program is only available as a leased program or an outright purchase from the site.

I thank you for your response.

[jaceravone]

As Lee said this is not a proof quarter. From 1956-1964 the US mint used reverse dies intended for to be used on proof quarters for their business strikes, but this was not the case for the obverse. Your coin displays a Type A reverse which is the NON-proof reverse die. As for your doubling that you see, I personally do not see any doubling except for some strike doubling. A quick look at CONECA's master listing shows only one DDO for 1959 that is a non-proof. The doubling is not around the motto, but rather on RTY of Liberty. Hope this helps.

[Merlin8971]

Thank you

Thank you Jaceravone. The information you supplied is very helpful.

[coin detective]

Merlin9671 brings up an interesting discussion that seemed to have been dropped or dismissed. It is easy to determine that proof reverse dies were used from 1956-64. The logical next thought would seem to be, that if the mint used left over proof reverse dies, why wouldn't they use left over obverse proof dies? The difficulty would be in finding some point of difference between proof and business strike obverses. I don't know if any determined studies have yet occurred to try to find if a difference exists. However, we do know that proof obverse dies during this time did result in obverse doubled dies. It certainly seems possible that working proof obverse dies resulting in doubled dies, were made from master proof doubled dies, that were we not used in final proof die preparation; were set aside, and later used for business strikes. I see Merlin9671's point. We should not lightly dismiss this possibility.

[19Lyds]

Merlin9671 brings up an interesting discussion that seemed to have been dropped or dismissed. It is easy to determine that proof reverse dies were used from 1956-64. The logical next thought would seem to be, that if the mint used left over proof reverse dies, why wouldn't they use left over obverse proof dies? The difficulty would be in finding some point of difference between proof and business strike obverses. I don't know if any determined studies have yet occurred to try to find if a difference exists. However, we do know that proof obverse dies during this time did result in obverse doubled dies. It certainly seems possible that working proof obverse dies resulting in doubled dies, were made from master proof doubled dies, that were we not used in final proof die preparation; were set aside, and later used for business strikes. I see Merlin9671's point. We should not lightly dismiss this possibility.

It is not being lightly dismissed and the possibility certainly exists.
However, there are folks out there whose "primary" collecting interest is in looking for evidence of proof dies used on business strike coinage and to date, none have been found for the 1959 Washington quarter. As such, the odds are fairly high that none exist.
As for the coin in the OP, if anything at all, it represents a good case of die deterioration doubling since doubling appears to occur on the West AND East of the "W" in WE.
As far as I know, this is unlikely in a true doubled die.
As for serif splits, it really depends upon the rotation if any rotation actually exists. For example, some DDO Washington only have doubling on the Ear.
It is important to understand the different "classes" of doubling which can occur when die's are created as some of the classes do not involve rotation at all.

[coin detective]

Hello 19Lyds. My point was that the search for a way to identify proof obverse dies being used on business strike coins should not be dismissed. I stated that I did not know if studies have been done on this matter. Some are flat stating that obverse proof dies do not exist. How do they know this? Is the chance remote? Maybe. New die varieties surface quite often over the entire spectrum of coin collecting. I did not comment on whether or not the coin shown was a doubled die or not. Most experts would rather have the coin in hand before venturing a guess as to the type of doubling. You seem to be focused on die deterioration doubling because the doubling shows on both sides of the coin. I understand that there are doubled die coins coupled with machine damage doubling that appear similar. I find the search for doubled dies quite interesting and have read and studied as much as I can. I currently have 20 Washington Quarters being attributed by Mike Ellis, because, with all the studying that I have done, I am still not an expert. It is difficult at best, to try to determine die varieties with the coin in hand, yet alone from a not always clear photo. I am happy that people get excited by their passion and quest for knowledge in our hobby. That's what this forum should be about. We should be trying to help each other learn, and keep that goal in mind. I welcome your observations, as I hope you would welcome mine.

[Merlin8971]

Thank You

Thank you 19Lyds and coin detective for the discourse about this coin. I learned a lot by the discussion.

This is the exact type of information sharing and discussion I continually look for on CONECA. Looking at various variables and possibilities of what we find in coin varieties.

I know it is sometimes possible to identify individual dies or die sets by anomolies on the die, however I would suspect that it is more difficult for proof dies.

Not that this coin needs to be investigated that thoroughly, at least not now.

Thanks again. Maybe this will spur more discussion on other coins.