I am researching the possibility of the 1902 Gold Quarter Eagle coin having 2 different dies being used in this year of production.I have looked at about 30 different coins of this mintage and there seems to be a distinct difference of 2 different types.

My coin has a distinct tear-drop shaped ear canal, while most of the other ones I see, have a less-pleasing round ear canal.

There also seem to be a slight difference at the bottom of the coin where the "1" in the date distorts the rim beading, as the round canal types impede the rim more than the teardrop shaped ear canal types.

I will try and add the pic of my coin as well as a few off the Heritage Auction site.

What do you think??

Dean

Well, over 100,000 were minted in that year, so more than one die must have been used. Are you looking for the classification or identification number of your coin?

You might be onto something, at first I thought it might be a contact mark making the ear round, but the distortion of the denticles is not a contact mark. 133,000 plus where made, and it's obvious that more than one die was used, and it appears there might be a difference.

Doe the reverses have any differences, and can you post pictures? Correct me if I'm wrong, but gold planchets where usually made in places like California, then shipped to Philly, so it's possible for a design change or alteration to occur.

I know some proofs were struck for this date. Could it be possible that a proof die was used on yours?

No RHM, this is a regular die strike.

I have to downsize my pics to post. I'll add one here.

Thanks

Dean

I know it's a business strike, but sometimes dies that were intended for use on proofs but not polished were used for business strikes.

What we need is a picture of a proof 1902, but usually the die design is the same.

Let me see if I can track one down...

Thanks

Dean.

OK, the Heritage site has a bunch of them. I have attached 2.

1st, let me throw out my opinion here....

I do not believe this to be a proof coin.
I have a few older proofs that have been handled, and they all retain that "Mirror" look surrounding the high points and show dulling into the open fields. This coin while stellar for its age has an even slightly matte finish throughout the entire field edge-to-edge.

That being said, most of the pics of proofs show a tear-drop ear canal, however a couple have a round canal as well....now I'm stumped.

Dean.

Added MS65 Coin here.

Like I mentioned above, sometimes proof dies were used for business strikes. They weren't polished yet, but were originally intended to be. In other words, business strikes struck from proof dies will not always show the characteristics of a proof, because they were not polished. I'm not saying that's what your coin is, but I think it is a possibility.

Yes, that would explain the differences in the 2 coins.
Good Call.
D.

I think there's a website somewhere for gold varieties. Let me see if I can find it.

I can't seem to find the web site. Maybe it's not around anymore, or maybe I was thinking of something else. Unfortunately, very little research has been done in gold die varieties, so there's next to nothing to go by. John Dannreuther has a book out on gold die varieties, but it only covers early gold, so yours won't be in there. Walter Breen's Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins might have it, but I don't own a copy and it costs over $300 used. It's been out of print for years and used to be up on a website, free for all the view, but they took it down for some reason. You might be able to find a copy at your local library if it hasn't been stolen and sold on eBay.

Alright, since I don't think it has anything to do with an unpolished die, let's see if it's a transitional coin. Meaning, the reverse of the coin was struck with an earlier die. I looked on Heritage, and I can see both ear types. I think you should contact Ken Potter, and see if he knows anything about it. You might have discovered an alternate type that has missed detection, or a type that is considered so common that it's not worth anymore than the other ear type.

If Ken Potter doesn't know (he probably won't), you could try John Dannreuther. The only book he wrote on the subject was about early U.S. gold, but he still might know about your variety. He was the founder of PCGS back in the '80s.

jdrc@mindspring.com

I'm not sure if that e-mail will work, but it's the only one I could find.

Thanks for the help all. I have been swamped with work (good thing) and haven't been able to pursue this farther.

I did however look at 1902 proofs online and....they ALL seem to have the teardrop shaped ear canal, which has peaked my curiosity.

I will do some additional work on this over the weekend.

Thank Again

Dean.