1964 Quarter d/d/d or worthless doubling?

[WaynoDraino]

I'm guessing this is worthless doubling but still looking for second opinion. Thank you PICA0031.jpg

[MintErrors]

In my opinion it looks like worthless doubling. You can always double check on
http://varietyvista.com they list varieties that are on the same scale as to what CONECA uses for listings. I do not know If quarters are completed yet at https://conecaonline.info but, they are listing a lot of coins there.

Https://doubleddie.com may have some quarters listed, and some might be more minor than the abovementioned websites.

The photos are great, but they should be orientated at 90 degree angles in the future. The reason is we use those photos when an overlay is needed and we try to see if the mint marks line up with out design elements in the background prior to 1989, the mintmarks were hammered into those steel working dies so, each one can be in a slightly different location.

[MintErrors]

Another handy thing to do is get some tracing paper. Trace the primary mint mark. Then slide it to the other mintmark to see how it might have looked, and to see if it logically could have been there. The reason for the repunched mintmark is the first strike was typically too weak, so the lesser/weaker mintmark may not show enough data to determine if it was possible.

[WaynoDraino]

Thank you. I like the tracing idea and will incorporate it. And I will, going forward, orient to 90 degrees. I appreciate it.