A 1996-D Quarter - Missing The Copper Core Error, Comments..

there should be more of these out there somewhere if a whole sheet of this composition was cut up into planchets

Mike,

I would like to be clear while on this topic, You are saying this coin was/is an orphan off metal error. I take this to mean the blank was intended for another coin or token or medal, correct?

I am looking for some clarity on this, are you saying this "planchet" is a foreign or mistakenly struck on the wrong " blank " error, and if so, some how this "blank", which should of never of been struck for this denomination was in the wrong place, at the right time for me?. Thanks, Mike...PS, Also the term wrong struck planchet would really still apply,is this correct?

Yes, this an off-metal error. The coin was struck on a slightly undersized blank that expanded to full size under the pressure of the strike. Presumably the blank was originally intended for a coin of another country, a token, or a medal. How it ended up in the production stream at the U.S. Mint is a mystery. That's why I call it an "orphan".

I don't know if it got this far yet and I am going to disagree....I didn't read all the pages. I think Its a counterfeit quarter:-) That's really all there is to it. The lettering of LIBERTY is wrong as are some of the hairlines. The hairlines are too sharp to have been struck into a planchet that thin.

The mid to late 1990s saw a rash of phony quarters. Some were cast, some were struck on poor quality blanks (planchets) and some were even struck on copper and spray painted. Many of them started out in the New Hampshire and Massachusetts areas.

The fakes weighed between 4.5 and 4.8 grams.

This one looks like one of those clunkers.

Bill,

I welcome ALL comments, this coin was sent to MR,Diamond for his expert advice and authenticity.

I see your comments were you did not read all of the input on this coin, Please do and I look forward to your comments again.Also, what are the counterfeit coins made of you are talking about?

I had this coin in my hand and KNOW it is not a counterfeit Quarter, I also thought it was a silver planchet, but was wrong about that. If you had the coin, you too would see the details and everything about the coin, I am being told MR.Diamond is doing an article on this coin for Coin World, read that when it comes out to see( I know Mike took more in depth pictures) if you still think it is not real, Mike.... I have to agree with MR Diamond about the coin being real, because I had it in my hand and He is an error expert, unlike myself and others......I love this forum!!

I love this forum, I also respect the fact that some experts here, offering their time and expertise, have great obvious respect for one another and yet their opinions are as differed as night and day on a topic . While I thought it odd some did not read the pages of input, before remarking, I have learned from this topic more than I ever thought I could!!

I appreciate ALL of the effort people have placed on this topic, Mike I again appreciate you and your expertise for being there and answering the call for assistance, after the roller coaster ride this coin has given( check the pages of input ) I saw another possible "bump in the road" and began to doubt myself, then after checking the pictures (more than 35), and pages of input, regained my confidence and trusted my gut opinion and your expertise, Thanks again for all you do for this forum, Mike....

Morgan's Dad and I have been discussing this coin off the forum too and my comments might clarify my thinking a little bit:-) It is slightly modified to make it more relevant to what is in the posts here.

Then again, maybe not:-)

Hi All,

Let me clarify....At the point at which I placed my first comment, I had read through about 2 1/2 pages of the 4 or 5 at that point. There wasn't any new information other than guesses so I put my comment up. After I posted, I read the rest and it didn't change my thoughts so it didn't matter that I skipped a page and a half of other posts. You may have noticed that there are often pages of posts that are nothing more than guesses by folks who are just guessing:-)

I also saw Mike's comments and I would respectfully disagree with him on this one and there are times when we do disagree. On the few disagreements, he is usually correct and I am sometimes correct and we learn from each other ( I learn a lot more from him:-).

I have seen counterfeit quarter dollars dated from 1973 thru 1996 and this one based upon your image and the weight of the coin places it squarely in the midst of other counterfeit quarters of the period, although since Mike saw it, he is obviously in a better position than I am to fully analyze the piece.

Mike's test can confirm that the coin is not a copper-nickel clad quarter dollar as we would expect the results to be. His tests can confirm what the coin is made of. That's all good and true but what he describes is what I remeber the counterfeit quarters to have been made of.

I would simply disagree with Mike, which I may have said in the post, maybe not.... All things lead to the coin, to my way of thinking to being a counterfeit including what Mike has posted. A struck counterfeit can have some great hairlines:-) if a die was made from an original coin. The hairlines on a quarter from the mid 1990s are a lot better looking than the hairlines, or lack thereof on a quarter from the 1970s. The dies were redone in the 90s making for a lot more detail on the quarters.


Thanks,
Bill

Then In a further part of our discussion, (Bill O' and Morgan's Dad, I suggested:

Hi,

Thank you also for understanding that this is simply a disagreement amongst coin people and nothing personal. I did read what Mike wrote and where I have difficulty is making the definitive leap that the coin is a strike on an experimental planchet.

The tests can tell us what the metals used were but they can't tell what the origin of the piece is.

Take for example, the rash of current counterfeit coins from China, many if not most test out as far as weight and specific gravity as being made of exactly the same materials as the actual coins that they are meant to be. The specific gravity testing and the weights do not tell us if the coins were struck at the U.S. Mint or if they are counterfeit coins. In the case of the coins from China, they are indeed counterfeit.

Back in the 1960s, for example, 1932 D and 1934 quarters were being counterfeited and the metals used were identical to the metals used at the Mint. The coins were almost flawless and were incredibly difficult to tell from real U.S. Mint coinage.

The point is that the metal used is no guarantee that a coin was struck at the Mint. Conversely, the fact that the metal used is different from what would be expected for a U.S. coin is no guarantee that a coin is struck on an experimental planchet at the Mint. In fact the likelihood is much more toward the coin being counterfeit although experimental planchets do exist.

Some of my thjoughts: If your coin was an experimental planchet, wouldn't the coin have been more carefully struck? If the coin were meant to be one struck on an experimental planchet, wouldn't they have made it the same size as a quarter planchet to see how it would strike up? I could be wrong but the experimental planchet scenario just doesn't seem to fit, at least to me:-).

Morgan's Dad had asked about the composition of the coin being made of some of the other expensive metals listed by Mike:

Please reread what Mike wrote. If I read it right, Mike states that the coin was struck on a solid copper-nickel planchet. Mike says, "It would appear that this quarter was indeed struck on a solid copper-nickel planchet" He seems to have added the other numbers for different metals as reference points. He was not saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that the coin was struck using those metals. A copper nickel planchet of that size would cost about 4 cents, give or take a tenth of a cent:-) so there were no expensive metals used.

The specific gravity of a pure nickel planchet would be 9.02 so while this piece could be cupro-nickel it could also be pure nickel. The point here is that the number can lead to other conclusions especially if there happens to be an impurity or a slight bubble inside the coin.

To me, All things still point to a strong possibility that the coin is a counterfeit.

Again, this is a respectful, and gentlemanly like disagreement. I just lean more toward a simpler explanation and of course, I could be way off:-)

Thanks,
Bill

PS: The reality is that I truly hope that Mike is right and actually, I suspect that he is. I just had to go with my gut on it:-)