Need Help Confirming Grade 1882 Seated Liberty Quarter

I've heard of the first three and thought that PCGS and NGC were the most respected (in that order) but what is CAC grading and why are they so expensive. I know NGC grates error coins, but what about the others. This isn't an error coin, but I have one I'd like confirmed and graded.

To my eyes, this doesn't have the look of a modern counterfeit. I'm leaning toward either a contemporary counterfeit or a roughly cleaned genuine coin.

I don't have my numismatic library available right now (I'm on month 14 of a promised "3-month home remodeling"). Going from memory, the 1882 had one production coin die pair and one proof coin die pair. My records indicate that I handled two 1882 quarters over the years, but I don't have photos of those coins. It's been a while since I have seen an 1882.

My notes say the 1882 production coins have a date that slopes downward from the first "8" through the "2." I think I can see that on your coin. They also have a couple die chips or die gouges that can be used to authenticate it. One of the die chips is somewhere on Liberty's thigh SE of the bottom of the pole. The second is on or near the eagle's right leg (our visual left) somewhere in the triangle next to that leg and the feathers on the arrows and the SW corner of the shield. I can't see those areas well on your photos.

The second die pair was used only for proofs, and I think it had an obverse with a more level date or higher date. I recall that it used a reverse that had been used for earlier year proofs. That reverse has E-W die scratches at the top of the lower shield, in the background behind the vertical stripes of the lower shield. This doesn't look at all like an impaired proof, but it should be ruled in or out anyway.

Here are your whole coin photos, with the rough areas of the die chips marked with red arrows and the rough area of the proof die polishing marks circled in blue. Would it be possible to see closeups of those areas?

A final thought would be for you to contact the Liberty Seated Collectors Club to see if anyone there could compare your coin to any of their photos of the known contemporary counterfeits.

Just some thoughts. Thanks!

Valuable insight fortcollins! Thanks.

Hopefully I got the areas in question.

Since I don't have photos of the coins I've handled, I looked at the PCGS plate coins. All three photos here belong to PCGS and are on their website. I clipped portions of them here to show the markers.

The first two photos here belong to PCGS and are from their 1882 business strike plate coin, a fantastic MS-68 example. The die chip on Liberty's arm isn't very big, and could certainly wear down in circulation. The die chip on the reverse, however, is in a protected area and should remain visible even on heavily circulated coins.




The last photo that belongs to PCGS is is from their 1882 proof plate coin, again a spectacular PR-68 example. The die polishing within the lower shield is visible, and is also in a protected area. Note the strong feather details in the triangle beneath the shield.



I do not think your coin came from the proof dies because of the design weakness throughout your coin. Because of that weakness, the lack of the reverse die chip, your reported coin weight, and the overall appearance, I have a suspicion that your coin may be a contemporary counterfeit.

If it is a contemporary counterfeit, it likely is either a cast "German Silver" example (generally 60% copper, 20% nickel, 20% zinc) or could be an antimony-lead-tin mixture (generally 70-80% tin, 15-20% antimony, and 10-15% lead). The impression likely would have come from a transfer die, which would explain the lack of detail and markers.

The easiest way to find out would be to take the coin to a jewelry store and see if they would ping it with an XRF to determine composition. That's a non-destructive test and could save submission costs to a TPG. Some stores charge a few dollars per test ($5-10), but if you are a regular customer, they might do a test free.

Just a warning. If the coin contains antimony, be careful handling it. Antimony is toxic.

All of that said, the devices on your coin have some roughness, which the genuine coins of that era exhibit. This may well be a genuine coin, just heavily worn and likely cleaned some time ago. My main reason for pausing is the lack of the die chip on the reverse.

That's the best I can offer here. It's an interesting coin. If genuine, an 1882 is a tougher date. It isn't rare, but it definitely isn't common, either.

I don't know. It doesn't look right. I don't have any notes or photos for comparison, but it doesn't look like any reeding I've seen from that era. My hesitation is that if the coin is genuine, either acid treatment or placement in a jewelry bezel could have damaged it. Would a damaged coin's reeding look like that afterward?