1990P Quarter with 1992 style mintmark

[lionmc13]

I was looking through quarters and trying to learn more about the different design changes throughout the years when I came across this 1990P Washington Quarter with what I see as the 1992 Philadelphia mintmark design (MMS-004) according to Variety Vista. I've included a picture which shows the mintmark on my quarter as well as MMS-003 and MMS-004 as shown on Variety Vista. The picture includes green arrows to what I see as a key design difference between the two different mintmark designs and the same area on my coin. Let me know what you think.

Also, does anyone else bother to check for NEW transitional mintmark varieties? The listings I find are for different mintmark designs used in the same year.

[occnumis2021]

this really isn't my wheelhouse but i will say your coin has a ton of contact and COULD explain why the bottom serifs look to match the 004.

that being said, i does look like the shape/size is the 004 when comparing the V V images from the link you posted to mint mark styles.

there appears to be a "slant" on the 003 when coming down from the bottom loop of the P to the leg, whereas the 004 doesn't.

there may be something here but i'm not studied up enough but thought to add my observations from extensive mm studies.

enlarged/brightened pic.

;lsdajgl;sadjl;sdajl;dsafj;ldfsajlsadf.jpg

[MintErrors]

Even if the coin does have a "wrong" mintmark for the year, I have never had a customer come up to me and ask for one, nor have they presented one to me.

Its tough to say with certainty due to the condition of the coin. IF it is an odd wrong style mint mark, in my opinion, I don't see anyone getting rich off this. Its a standard US mintmark on a coin. It might be a big deal if it was the wrong size, inverted or some other freak happening.

The overall shape is promising, but getting value out of this will take quite a feat. It would cost a good chunk of money to send it in to a third party grading service, IF they even recognize this as an issue. I venture to guess that two of the three would not "recognize" this as a variety nor an error. They do know what money is and if they get paid, that's all that counts.

[lionmc13]

Thank you both for the feedback.

Occnumis, I agree that my coin has taken a ton of contact and to my eye I can't see contact to the 003 resulting in what my coin looks like. The upper serif on the back of the P in particular would be some evidence. I of course appreciate that you are seeing some of what I am seeing.

MintErrors, I agree that no one is getting rich off this coin, and it would be highly unlikely to come close to breaking even after paying third party grading services. My interest is numismatic. I've always been a researcher and data geek, so I was wondering how many others might be looking at coins with the intention of collecting this kind of data.

I've realized it is the San Francisco mintmark that gets all the attention with names like "trumpet-tail" or "knob-tail" when someone notices different mintmarks within the same year. Or, in 1979 when all denominations with the S mintmark saw the type 2 variety that by 1981 had become the type 1 variety and was replaced with a new type 2 variety, which never did go on to become a type 1.

I've decided to name my discovery the "straight in P." Perhaps I'll see if Dr. Wiles is willing to take a look so he can update the reference list on Variety Vista. It may cost me money, but I'll feel that I've contributed to the larger coin collecting community.

[occnumis2021]

Thank you both for the feedback.
I've decided to name my discovery the "straight in P." Perhaps I'll see if Dr. Wiles is willing to take a look so he can update the reference list on Variety Vista. It may cost me money, but I'll feel that I've contributed to the larger coin collecting community.

maybe.

if anything comes about from it, let us know!