Weird 1967 Quarter Found.

[Sirius]

38 minutes ago, Chase Goldman said:

Not sure what you are asking here (“thin layer of copper”).  The two outer clad layers are 75/25 Cu/Ni alloy which has a silver/nickel appearance. There is no thin layer of copper.  The core is pure copper.  

I was responding to GB. Basically why would I need to scratch deeply when the core is so close to the surface. I  took a not so tarnished clad quarter and scratched the rim on a brick and it instantly exposed the copper core, whereas the coin I found yesterday didn't show any signs of having a copper core after scratching the rim on a test surface. 
My question now is: could this be a counterfeit quarter?

[Chase Goldman]

3 hours ago, Sirius said:

I was responding to GB. Basically why would I need to scratch deeply when the core is so close to the surface. I  took a not so tarnished clad quarter and scratched the rim on a brick and it instantly exposed the copper core, whereas the coin I found yesterday didn't show any signs of having a copper core after scratching the rim on a test surface. 
My question now is: could this be a counterfeit quarter?

It really makes no financial sense to go through the effort to counterfeit a clad quarter.  

What it looks like to me is that the copper core of your quarter has circumferentially receded from the edge of the coin whose diameter is now defined soly by the Cupronickel surface clad layers.  This can be explained by the fact that the pure copper is more susceptible to saltwater induced corrosion than the Cu/Ni clad layers, so there is more pure Cu metal lost.  The net effect of that is that when you scratch the edge you are deforming the silver-toned Cu/Ni metal into the circumfrential void created from the receding copper core.  If you instead took a file and scratched off some of the clad surface layer off the face of the coin, you might then better expose the copper core layer than scratching the edge.

[Sirius]

22 minutes ago, Chase Goldman said:

It really makes no financial sense to go through the effort to counterfeit a clad quarter.  

What it looks like to me is that the copper core of your quarter has circumferentially receded from the edge of the coin whose diameter is now defined soly by the Cupronickel surface clad layers.  This can be explained by the fact that the pure copper is more susceptible to saltwater induced corrosion than the Cu/Ni clad layers, so there is more pure Cu metal lost.  The net effect of that is that when you scratch the edge you are deforming the silver-toned Cu/Ni metal into the circumfrential void created from the receding copper core.  If you instead took a file and scratched off some of the clad surface layer off the face of the coin, you might then better expose the copper core layer than scratching the edge.

There is very little void, at some points the core is even with the nickel clad on the edge. This is also the one and only example i've seen of a coin with a missing copper core from all the clad quarters i've dug. If there was indeed corrosion then why don't I see the usual suspect of green oxidized copper leeching out of the coin or even the copper itself? I'm not gonna scratch up the coin to go searching for something that's likely not there.

[Chase Goldman]

Well ok then.  Suit yourself.

Strange you sought and then decided to basically brush off the input of a coin dealer as well as multiple experienced forum members who took the time to respond regarding the potential nature of your find.  But that is certainly your prerogative.  It is your find, after all.

If you feel so inclined, look up Occam's Razor. 

The simple version of that is summed up in the saying:

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

Who knows, maybe there is a small possibility we're all wrong and you have something unusual there.  But if you are basing it on the few hundred clad quarters you've personally seen in various corroded states since you took up detecting a few months ago, then that is a pretty weak position to consider conclusive considering all the variables and the probable millions of clad quarters that are out there exposed to the elements.  If you've seen the pics of Beach Find clad here, there are no "usual suspects" regarding corrosion states and appearances regarding green copper and copper leaching.  It's all over the map.

If you just want affirmation of an "out there" hypothesis, versus usable input, that's fine, I guess.  But forum members like to share honest advice from their experiences not just tell you what you want to hear.  It's also reassuring to get confirmation your feedback is given serious consideration.  I can't speak for the others who chimed in here, but from my perspective, at least, it was just a tad frustrating reading the same counter argument multiple times.  🤔 

Something to think about if you plan to use the forum to get input on your next inquiry. 

Oh, BTW, nice pocket watch you have there that made several guest appearances throughout thread.

Cheers...and happy hunting.

[Gold Seeker]

I think that quarter was simply exposed to some other different condition/elements than all the other quarters you've found and thus the different color/corrosion your seeing, but if t floats your boat then it's whatever you think it is.

[Chase Goldman]

 

35 minutes ago, Gold Seeker said:

but if t floats your boat then it's whatever you think it is.

Reminds me of when I was first getting into relic detecting.  I recovered a highly corroded ferrous target at a farm site.  It was a hook or something.  It was non-descript in terms of being able to tell whether it was CW period iron or modern farm junk.  I asked my detecting buddy if he thought it was a CW period relic. Knowing that 1) it had no distinguishing features that could conclusively date the item and 2) it had basically no collectable value either way - he replied, "It is if you want it to be."  Never forgot that and it injected some reality into my idealistic sense of what relic and treasure detecting is all about and the very small potential that any given unidentifiable target I pull out of the ground is some unique relic treasure. FWIW.

[longbow62]

Not long ago I found a 1965 Washington about 2 inches deep. It had about the same wear as the suspect quarter. It was not even corroded as badly. It looks to me like it's a somewhat fresh drop with little corrosion. Plus it has way more corrosion than what is normal for silver. Almost every silver I dig has no visible corrosion on it. When they do have corrosion it's almost always a little black staining. I'm not even sure the black staining would even be considered corrosion.

[GB_Amateur]

2 hours ago, Chase Goldman said:

Strange you sought and then decided to basically brush off the input of a coin dealer as well as multiple experienced forum members who took the time to respond regarding the potential nature of your find.  But that is certainly your prerogative.  It is your find, after all.

If you feel so inclined, look up Occam's Razor. 

The simple version of that is summed up in the saying:

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

Who knows, maybe there is a small possibility we're all wrong and you have something unusual there.

IMO, there should be a balance between the euphoria and wishful thinking of considering a find being rare (and valuable) vs. the likely eventual reality.  My approach is to begin with the former but not to carry it to the latter extreme.  A few nights sleep along with considering opinions of others helps a lot.  Time deadens the fickle emotions and lets logic/reason spill through.

Every coin I pull from the ground is the Holy Grail of numismatics until I see evidence to the contrary.  Usually that evidence comes quickly; occasionally it takes awhile.

I will say this -- somewhat contrary to other replies -- experts (true or supposed) can be wrong.  Many have the tendency to immediately blow off a query, partly because of how many junk finds they have to 'appraise' (for free).  I think the Rocks, Minerals, and Geology forum here is a decent example.  How many fairly common, 'worthless' specimen photos (more often than not out-of-focus) land here, and this isn't primarily a geology site.  It's easy to empathize with the 'experts' when they get frustrated.  But sometimes....  The key -- and this is the only way to go -- is to listen and strongly consider the reasons given.  If you don't get reasons then ignore the opinion as it may well not have firm ground to stand on.

You can keep the door open without arguing with every person who tries to close it.  Eventually the evidence will clarify and one needs to be ready for that.  In the meantime while you're still holding that door open, even if just by a crack, put yourself in the other person's shoes and respect their views, usually simply keeping your mouth (and fingers) quiet.  It's OK to disagree in silence.

[Chase Goldman]

Sirius - just one last follow up.  As I read through your replies, especially the last one, it is not clear to me whether you still think the quarter is silver or even valuable or just a unique strike on the wrong metal or a no-value counterfeit.  You were willing to scratch up the edge after visiting the coin dealer, after all. 

So your unwillingness to destructively test the coin further might just be that it is not worth the trouble to confirm whether or not the core is actually copper at this point (though you apparently do think there is no copper there) and not because you think it has collectable value.  I get that.  But at this point, i think that is the only way to be sure.  However, if you still want it to be accepted by the CoinStar machine, definitely let it be.  

[Chase Goldman]

2 hours ago, GB_Amateur said:

You can keep the door open without arguing with every person who tries to close it.  Eventually the evidence will clarify and one needs to be ready for that.  In the meantime while you're still holding that door open, even if just by a crack, put yourself in the other person's shoes and respect their views, usually simply keeping your mouth (and fingers) quiet.  It's OK to disagree in silence.

This is sound advice for all who participate in asking for and dispensing advice, Chuck, regardless of where you stand on the present subject at hand.  Thanks for articulating it so well.  I often have to step back and look in the mirror and regain that sense of self-awareness as to whether I'm preaching or just trying to win an unwinnable debate solely for the sake of winning or being proven right, even if it’s only in my own mind.