1956 quarter/ possible mint error

[Crazy Chester]

Hello
I have a 1956 D Quarter that the obverse appears to have been struck twice and rotated between strikes. 'IN God WE TRUST', the date and 'LIBERTY' are quite visible. The reverse looks OK. This coin weighs equal to another '56 quarter. The circumference is larger but appears to be perfectly round. The coin in question is thinner than the coin used for comparison. I will try to attach a few pictures but they were taken with a cell phone camera. The images are poor but the 'doubling' is very easy to see. My question is, did this occur at the mint or some other way? Is it worth sending in to NGC for grading. Is it worth even spot price?
To anyone who takes time to answer: Thank You Very Much!!!
C.C.

[Daniel]

Which coin is larger and weighs the normal weight in the pictures? I'm a little confused, I can see the doubled features, but I want to make sure which coin I'm looking at.

[marc.durante]

That's pretty cool.

[Crazy Chester]

Hello Daniel

My apology for not doing a better job explaining the pictures that I sent. I will try to answer to your questions. I sent in three photos, all of them are of poor resolution.
the first one, or top image shows two '56 quarters stacked. The top one is a 'normal' '56 D. The one on the bottom is the coin in question. This photo was meant to show the difference in circumference between the two. The error coin, on the bottom, is larger around and is just a bit thinner than the 'normal' size '56.
The second photo from the top shows the obverse of the same two '56 quarters. This picture is to show the difference in size between the 'normal' '56 and the 'error' piece.
This photo of the two quarters side by side was also meant to show that the error coin looks to be 'perfectly round but slightly larger in circumference.
The third or bottom picture is to show the 'doubling' of the error coin. I wish I had better pictures for you to examine. On the weight question I believe the two coins are close in weight. I used a somewhat primitive balance set up and they were close to equal. If it will help you I can have it weighed on a proper coin scale tomorrow. One thing that seems odd is that the reverse of the error coin does not show anything unusual. I don't know the process a blank goes through in production but it just seemed
strange. I hope this helps you. I can still send you an image of the reverse of the coin in question if that will help. It should have been included with the other three.
Daniel, thank you so much for sharing your time and expertise with me. I am very grateful. I was unsure where to reply to your questions. Here or the private email. I hope you get these answers.
Sincerely,
Robert (C. C.)

[Daniel]

No apologies, please. I understand what is what now :laughbounce Anyway, the larger coin appears to be counterfeit. I can't be 100%, but it doesn't have the surface luster of the authentic quarter in comparison. If you can ever get better pics, please post them. I don't want to give you the incorrect info, based on blurry pics. Thanks for choosing this forum for your question, it's an interesting coin no matter what it actually is.

[Crazy Chester]

Hello Daniel
Thanks for your fast reply. I agree with you 100%. Not because of my personal knowledge but because I had put out a few inquires about this piece. I was told to consult a Mr.Fred Weinberg. An expert in mint errors. Today he replied with the same conclusion. It is not a mint error. It is an altered 'coin' if you can call it a coin. I was a bit let down but life goes on. This was from my fathers collection and he took very good care of it. This altered quarter was just in a small tin box as opposed to a Dansco or similar book. So I had some idea that something was wrong. This is the same little box that had a '1652 Pine Tree Shilling' and of course it was a fake. Now we're talking major let down! Well Daniel I thank you very much for your time and being that you concur with Mr. Weinberg that makes you an expert too. I found your site by pure luck so I consider it a victory! Hope to have some more questions for you. I know you will tell me the truth. Great looking site too!
Most Grateful, C. Chester. (Robert)

[Daniel]

I'm sorry to hear about the let down, but grateful to help you. I hope you don't become a stranger around here! Your welcome.

[RHM22]

Well, your quarter is probably still worth the silver value, so don't chuck it away! If your father was an old-time collector, he may still have some other coins that are errors. I hope to see you back in the future!

[Crazy Chester]

To Daniel, regandon and RHM 22

Thank You All for the help and kind words! My Father had collected many fine coins. Among the coins in the 'tin box' with other error coins there are clipped, laminated, off centered and planchets. Some with rim and some without. There are two others that I would like to hear your opinion on. One planchet, that appears to be copper but is about the diameter of today's quarter or an 1865 two cent piece. The one I have would maybe make a G-4 grade with a bit of luck. So I was wondering what your thoughts on what may have been planned for this blank. One other piece is an 1848 large cent. Amazingly you can read the date and other key identifying marks. This coin looks like it has been dipped in acid. Its heavily marked with small irregular shaped 'holes' but not all the way through. It is also clipped. I just can't come up with a proper description. You have seen my pictures so that won't be of any help. I am sure it has very little monetary value but I was wondering what may have caused this type of markings and being its so old could it be a error?
Thank You for your time, I am most grateful!
C.C.