Mintage Numbers For Extra Leaf Varieties 2004 Wisconsin State Quarter

i dont know an exact mintage but I have not heard of a bunch more being found. its probably that supply is higher than demand. and a lot of these modern coins go up and come back down over a few years. Sometimes faster than a few years. I have heard that the coins just have trivial die gouges. hope this helps

I've heard that a mint employee added these to one die of each during the run. A single die can make several thousands of these depending on die life. The high prices were, to me a fad that died out. Thus the lowering of prices now.

Very nice article! First time I've seen it, but it hits the real root of the situation. Thanks for posting it daviscfad.

I suspect this post has the potential to cause controversy (as well as the potential to be completely ignored), but I am not posting for the purpose of inflaming. Rather, I hope any debate will serve to enlighten. I am not challenging anyone's experience or recognized expertise. I am, however, questioning a specific proposition put forth, based solely on the strength of the argument itself. That is the focus here. So....that being said....

Thanks for posting Mr. Potter's article. But even though I am quite the novice by comparison to Mr. Potter and those he cites, I can only conclude that he puts forth but another theory, and one supported by a line of reason only as opposed to any physical evidence. He makes his case by interpreting the physical evidence and then reasoning his way from there to his theory of accidental gouges.

As is true with any line of reasoning, if any of the facts (or links) in the chain are unsupportable, then the whole chain becomes invalid. And certain of his assumptions are subject to question.

He begins by asserting that the extra markings are NOT leaves 'by any stretch of the imagination.' There is nothing wrong with my imagination, and I find in my independent judgment, that my imagination need not be stretched at all to see leaves on both high and low varieties.

While there is little reason to tinker in such a fast moving program as the State Quarter program, as Mr. Potter states, that in no way addresses whether tinkering, authorized or otherwise, had occurred. Without a time machine to be there to witness the production of these coins, there is no basis for such an assumption. The possible exception is the assumption that Mints or other government controlled endeavors behave 'reasonably' on a reliable basis. That underlying assumption is more of a stretch to my imagination, backed by lots and lots of evidence (for another time and another place).

If the design alterations were rogue, there would be no validity to the claim that the so-called leaves fall short of the 'intended' design, and relying on the underlying assumption of that claim ( that everything coming from the mint is reasonable and intended) as being proof that it is not a leaf does not support the argument. It is an attempt to offer the proof of an assumption by means of another assumption.

Mr. Potter's disregard for the design elements, asserting they are neither true to nature or the intended design, is perhaps his weakest link of his logical progression. I am not at all certain where his aesthetic sensibilities are rooted, but the high leaf only appears to sprout from the chunk of cheese if one lacks 3D perspective. Clearly (at least arguably)the leaf begins from behind the cheese and from below the top surface of the chunk, further down on the stalk (which, by his argument, also sprouts from the cheese chunk). It is also shown from a side angle, so the surface will not show. Any first year art student, or observant individual, sees 3D perspective and angles in 2D representations. The same is true for the low leaf design. Even with his description, I don't see the leaf piercing through another leaf. I see another leaf, more distant and upturned, peeking out from behind the more prominent leaves in the foreground.

Is what I'm seeing incorrect? Is what Mr. Potter seeing incorrect? Who knows? The point is that to base a line of reasoning on such interpretations that are based in a certain set of assumptions, does not provide evidence to support or negate a theory as he attempts to do.

Mr. Potter's argument that the markings are gouges, and random ones at that, goes beyond my personal credulity. Random? What are the odds of two different and prominent random markings, both being placed within a design to appear as a credible part of the design (as evidenced by the number of people who see that with their own eyes, which has brought about this controversy in the first place)being totally random as claimed? Even the photo he supplies, with the elongated, pointy die gouge near the rim shows that it was clearly not part of any design. That one appears random, as opposed to the leaves.

The idea of leaves being rejected in favor of random gouges is based on the assumptions that the US Mint acts on reason, and that there is no possibility of a crude addition to the design by a rogue employee (although I question how crude it really is), and so therefore it couldn't possibly be intended. It is the underlying set of assumptions that do not support the argument built upon them, and certainly does not support the conclusion.

It is an interesting alternative theory that Mr. Potter puts forth for consideration, but under close consideration it is not supportable, at least as presented. The only way to really know what happened is to have been there in Denver. We will never really know until the Enquirer comes out with the REAL story. In the mean time, I must continue to hold to my own observation and judgments and call them leaves.

I certainly invite all takes on the issue, in agreement or in opposition. But....Please don't hurt me....my wife kinda likes having me around even if you'd be hard pressed to get her to admit it.

Thanks, SeatedNut. I appreciate the information and direction addressing my original question. I will how many other population reports I can access for free. Thanks also for your no-kill response, and for calling them 'varieties.'

I have no comment on whether or not the varieties are leaves as I have not seen the coins in person. As to how many are out there I think the Cherry Pickers Guide lists the dies for quarters to be good for about 200,000 strikes, so I would assume as many as 200,000 of each are out there.

Kie

I do not think anyone here said anything about them not being variety's. You said you noticed a price drop so I hit Google and some info popped up. I had seen the article a while back on that site and thought it might help or at least be an interesting read. As biokemist6 said most of the moderns are dropping in value. The problem is people see it and say I have to have it so the prices go way up even higher than they should. Then as time passed people loose interest in things and they come back down to where they should be. watch the 2008 Proof silver eagle. it is not rare by know means but since the mint halted production all of a sudden its I have to have one and they shoot up. It has started going back down also. I hope I didnt confuse you more