| Author |
 Replies: 18 / Views: 3,204 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
I'm suspicious, as noted, but I have no problem with the surfaces.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
188560 Posts |
I agree with Coinfrog. The surfaces look okay (at least on my display).
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
18456 Posts |
I'm no expert but I strongly believe the S mint mark was put on that coin to deceive . With the amount of wear on that coin ( both sides ) that S is just too sharp to be normal . If others agree I would try to get a refund from the seller .  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2520 Posts |
Doesn't look like the MM that should be on a 32 S. Looks nothing like example shown on Variety Vista imho.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Would bet a couple silver kennedy's that mint mark was added.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
265 Posts |
Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but this S looks to be a little too big of a font size. I just looked at some other circulated examples on ebay, and the S mint mark on those sit to the north a bit where as yours is centered. I am calling unoriginal on it. |
|
New Member
 United States
19 Posts |
I spoke to the seller and told him of all of your input, and he agreed it's probably faked and gave a refund. Thanks for the help everyone.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
135 Posts |
When I first looked at it, I laughed because the whole coin was worn down but the S mint mark is, well, look at it! Haha! It sticks out like a sore thumb. I don't believe this coin is normal. It could be anything, but I'd give it an "Authenticity unverifiable" because I can't for sure tell you this isn't a problem-free coin. It's very sharp for no reason and is dark around it, which only appears on a few spots on the coin.
In my opinion, this was a 1932 P but the S was put on it to increase its value, as an S is worth 10x more than a P 1932 quarter.
|
|
Moderator
United States
188560 Posts |
Quote:
Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but this S looks to be a little too big of a font size. I agree. Quote:
I spoke to the seller and told him of all of your input, and he agreed it's probably faked and gave a refund.  |
|
Moderator
United States
15433 Posts |
 to the CCF I concur with added mint mark - pleased that you will be receiving a refund. Our experts are always here - amazing volunteer support. Take a look at my other hobby ... http://www.jk-dk.art |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Glad to hear about the refund!  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
745 Posts |
Definitely a added S wrong style mint mark for 1932, should be the same style as the S on the 1935S to 1940S quarters.
This looks like the S that was used on the 1954S quarter
Tim Hughes
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
703 Posts |
Glad you received a refund. That mintmark looks all kinds of off!
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Mintmark is too large and the wrong style for that year. Not even close.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
20753 Posts |
However it was a good job of adding that MM.
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 18 / Views: 3,204 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 07/29/2019 2:51 pm
