Explanation for type B & C Quarters?

[coin detective]

The type B Washingtons, having been made at least from 1956 to 1964, cannot be a mistake by the mint. Not for 9 years in a row. Why was this type coin created by the mint each of those years? Obviously, it cannot just be a mistake. Then to repeat the type again in 69-72 seems slightly incredible. Even more incredible is the fact that this type coin has gone unrecognized by NGC and PCGS for so long a time(ANACS has recognized and graded them for some time). Why has the industry ignored the type B and C Washingtons for so long?

[MSL615]

Type BC quarters

Coin Detective

I posted the image of the 1969 Type B a little while ago that I found in circulation recently. I was sent some nice leads by others in the group on how to find out more about them (thank you). I agree with you though that the information I have found so far talks about populations, but not much about how or why this was done so often, for all those years. The Complete Guide to Washington Quarters by John Feigenbaum apparently has some data in it showing that the version B for 1956-1964 Denver mints are common, but not so for Philadelphia.

I also searched the Heritage Auction site to see if any of the 1969-1972 series have come up there, but not much.

I am working on getting a copy of Feigenbaum to see if he has a discussion about how this happened so often.

Let me know if you find out more,

Thanks

[Novicetoerr]

- I searched but did not find the other earlier threads on this Type B and C
Quarters.

- I do have a question... Is there a transitional variety of the mint's
relocation from reverese to obverse?

Thanks,
J

[foundinrolls]

Hi,
I can't figure out your logic. Take for example the 1998, 1999, and 2000 Wide AM Lincoln cents. For those three years some number of circulation strike coins were mistakenly struck by dies intended for proof coins. The dies involved were mismanaged and were not intentionally placed into service.

So in that case, the same mistake occurred for three years in a row.

How does it follow that because something turns up for many years that it is purposeful as opposed to accidental?

Thanks,
Bill

[Novicetoerr]

Hi,
I can't figure out your logic. Take for example the 1998, 1999, and 2000 Wide AM Lincoln cents. For those three years some number of circulation strike coins were mistakenly struck by dies intended for proof coins. The dies involved were mismanaged and were not intentionally placed into service.

So in that case, the same mistake occurred for three years in a row.

How does it follow that because something turns up for many years that it is purposeful as opposed to accidental?

Thanks,
Bill

Hi Bill,

Believe you are addressing that to Coin Detective, not to me , as I have
not applied any logic to my question in the thread. Just interested in learning about the Types B & C in the subject thread. And relative info on the mint
relocation.

Pardon if I butted-in in the middle of your discussion.

J

[foundinrolls]

Hi Novicetoerr,

Yep, I was adding my comment in relation to MSL615's post. In these threads, I may often add to something that is in the thread although it may not be necessarily a direct answer or comment about the earlier threads or the original question.

It's kinda like a conversation with responses sometimes based upon the responses as well as the original question.

Also, these threads are all wide open. Noone butts in:-) Always feel free to post or add comments or questions:-)!

Thanks,
Bill

[MSL615]

Everyone
It looks like we have two threads going here on the Type B quarters and maybe we can consolidate them.

My original post was submitted on April 19 when I found the 1969 D in circulation. There was some discussion there and then the question on this thread about the mint processes that would be involved.

If it is OK, I am going to return to the original thread so we don't have to keep flipping back and forth.

See you there....
MSL615

[Novicetoerr]

Hi All,

Since I'm aready in, have to give my one cent input.

- Prior mistakes can haunt us back and forth if the applied solution was
not "irreversible" (should address both process and materials, which include
mishandling, whether unintentional or otherwise).

Thanks,
J

[diamond]

- Prior mistakes can haunt us back and forth if the applied solution was
not "irreversible" (should address both process and materials, which include
mishandling, whether unintentional or otherwise).

This comment is completely impenetrable. English, please.

[Bonehead]

The type B Washingtons, having been made at least from 1956 to 1964, cannot be a mistake by the mint. Not for 9 years in a row. Why was this type coin created by the mint each of those years? Obviously, it cannot just be a mistake. Then to repeat the type again in 69-72 seems slightly incredible. Even more incredible is the fact that this type coin has gone unrecognized by NGC and PCGS for so long a time(ANACS has recognized and graded them for some time). Why has the industry ignored the type B and C Washingtons for so long?

Feignbaum says " Breen notes a few '56-Ps; approx 5% of 57Ps; & a small portion of the '58-P thru '63-Ps have the type B rev." Breen also notes that the type B rev was intended for Proofs. Perhaps the Philadelphia mint was trying to stretch resources by reusing some of the still servicable proof dies.