| Author |
 Replies: 9 / Views: 720 |
|
|
New Member
United States
9 Posts |
Can someone please tell me if I am correct in what I am understanding...new and still learning thank you for your help: the bicentennial quarters 1776-1976 variations are as follows: 5.67 g +/- .227 (about 5.64-5.69) - 1776-1976 ( no mint) copper nickel 1776-1976 D copper nickel 1776-1976 S copper nickel then I understand there are: 5.75 g +/- .2 (5.73-5.77) - 1776-1976 S silver filled (type 1) 1776-1976 S silver filled (type 1) rounded 1776-1976 S silver clear (type 2) rounded 1776-1976 S silver clear (type 2) flat The silver clad ones (5.75) are only in "S" mint.... The copper nickel ones (5.76) are "D", "S", and "P" ( no mint mark).... Is all of this accurate? Am I missing any variations with weights mints or types? |
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
96451 Posts |
never heard of a type 1 or 2 bicentennial quarter I have but only on the Ike dollar. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
6244 Posts |
You Data is compete out of the reality.
Second: The quarters 1976 do not have MM types. Exclude.
The S was only in Proof.
Which was your surce? Curiosity.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
6525 Posts |
I think he's calling silver business strike as "filled" type 1 and the proof as "clear" type 2. The proper types are: 1776 - 1976 clad bicentennial quarter. (cupronickel, Philadelphia, no mint mark, business strike) 1776 - 1976 D clad bicentennial quarter. (cupronickel, business strike) 1776 - 1976 S silver bicentennial quarter. (business strike) 1776 - 1976 S clad proof bicentennial quarter. (cupronickel) 1776 - 1976 S silver proof bicentennial quarter. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8761 Posts |
-makecents-
Edited by -makecents-
01/27/2024 9:32 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
6244 Posts |
Yes Make, VV mention Type 1 on MM. not an type 2 for this year. This type 2 as per them was in 1979. Why? me I have no evidences of theirs claims varieties for MM. How they gone with this study? How they explain? Sorry I have no data. Maybe one day I will know. Anyways, they do not upgrade the CONECA/VV data frequently, in fact from 2019 is no upgrade official. I have to ask Daniel Malonne. To fallow on this.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6525 Posts |
To my knowledge, there was only one mint mark punch type used in San Francisco for 1975/1976 quarters. Am I wrong?
The type 1/2 mint marks happened in 1979 and 1981, iirc. At least for nickels.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8761 Posts |
Quote:
To my knowledge, there was only one mint mark punch type used in San Francisco for 1975/1976 quarters. Am I wrong?
The type 1/2 mint marks happened in 1979 and 1981, iirc. At least for nickels. It is actually the same punch but used in different eras. The study was done on Lincoln cents but Coop clued me in on the fact that all denominations used the same punches, I did not know that until he told me. Not sure if this is what the OP is talking about though, lots of weights, clad and silver being talked about, that's why I retracked my first statement. Here is a link to what I'm talking about. LINK http://varietyvista.com/Mystery%20o...%20Punch.htm-makecents-
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6525 Posts |
I believe your statement is true from the 1960s forward. Prior to that, certain denominations adopted mint marks in different years. The 1941 trumpet tail S is a good example. Also, some denominations used multiple different punches in the same year, where other denominations did not. For example, 1952 for Denver nickels vs. other coins. Other marks appear to have been unique, like the 1945 Mercury dime Micro-S. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8761 Posts |
Quote:I believe your statement is true from the 1960s forward. Prior to that, certain denominations adopted mint marks in different years. The 1941 trumpet tail S is a good example. Also, some denominations used multiple different punches in the same year, where other denominations did not. For example, 1952 for Denver nickels vs. other coins. Other marks appear to have been unique, like the 1945 Mercury dime Micro-S. Brand, I do not think this has anything to do with what the OP was referring to, I misunderstood what they were looking for but wanted to clarify what I left the link for. A mint mark style/punch, that was used in 40's and 50's was brought back and used again in the 70's. You will notice in the pic below, showing the different mint mark numbers, are actually from the same punch.  -makecents-
|
| |
Replies: 9 / Views: 720 |
|
Posted 01/27/2024 11:27 am
