1964 Double Strck Washington Quarter

[vincem2]

Hi,
I was reviewing EBAY and came across a double struck 1964 Washington Quarter
(Item # 330355112441). It’s a need looking mint error. Does this look like an authentic mint error?
.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=330355112441&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT

Thanks

[mustbebob]

It sure looks like a genuine double struck quarter to me!

[diamond]

I would be wary. There are many excellent counterfeits from this year that cannot be detected without close examination under a microscope. This specimen shows a slightly weak second strike, which is a warning sign associated with many of the counterfeit second strikes from this period.

[FrankLeone]

It's a counterfeit from false dies.

[mustbebob]

OK...Questions....How are we so sure it is from counterfeit dies? What diagnostics am I missing while looking at this coin? Are we saying the entire coin is counterfeit, or only the second strike? Am I assuming that the 'weak' strike you refer to Mike is because there is no bottom edge of the second strike showing? I should probably stick to varieties, but I am a always willing to learn from the experts.

=BOB=

[FrankLeone]

the second strike has a bold doubled die. there's a variety for ya ; P there's more to the story of the coin but lets just stick with what it is. The host appears to be genuine so all weight and other tests would be dead on.

[diamond]

Frank may have more experience with these than me. But I've seen enough fake and fishy 1964 double strikes to be wary of any that show unusual aspects. There is no smoking gun here, just warning signs. One is the weak second strike, which is demonstrated by the incomplete peripheral design elements. Another feature one often sees in these fakes is a perfect offset with no rotation. While these features (off-center strike with no rotation and weak second strike) can be found in genuine errors, they're uncommon in isolation and especially uncommon when they co-occur.

[FrankLeone]

the bold doubling of IGWT is a mighty big fish to swim around. I doubt very much it is real. It's the kind of coin that if ya heart wants it, go ahead and throw caution to the wind. Just don't try to slab it as that same heart may fail when it gets back to you : )

[diamond]

I saw that doubling, but I wasn't sure if it was from the die, a photographic artifact, or a misinterpretation of the sort of disruption that often affects letters in a double strike. But looking at it a second dime, it does appear to be a doubled die. And that would clinch its bogus status.

[mustbebob]

Very interesting. I saw the doubling on the motto as well, and assumed it was a result of the second strike. not from a different die. I agree about the possibility of a 'perfect alignment' being scarce. I thank you guys for taking the time to explain things.

[vincem2]

Bob, Mike, and Frank… thank you for taking the time to thoroughly research and the valuable feedback that each of you provided. The coin was a real eye catcher for me. But now that the anomalies were pointed out, I have a better idea what to look for in the future. Are there any books available to help identify (points of interest to look for) if the coin is an authentic double struck mint error or a counterfeit?

Thanks again and take care…. Vince

[diamond]

One useful (but out-of-print) book is "Detecting Counterfeit Coins, Book 1" by Lonesome John Devine (1976). But it is by no means comprehensive. I've seen struck counterfeits so good that they've slipped past the best in the business. Be cautious of major striking errors from the 1950's and early 1960's. 1963 and 1964 were big years for silver counterfeits. But superb examples can be found in any year. A microscope is an essential tool for detecting counterfeits.

[19Lyds]

Hmmmm. Someone must have contacted the seller as all bids were cancelled and the auction ended.