Weird Coin

why do you think it's fake?

>>298171
I don't know much about coins. My only guess is the weird rolled edge and the dot for a mint mark.

File: IMG_20170416_084907045[1].jpg (3MB, 4320x2432px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4320x2432px

>>298172
I'm not an expert either, but I'll take a stab.

I actually found one that looks somewhat similar. The ridges on the edge are still there, but the mint mark is beat down almost to a nub. Pic related.

On yours, Washington's face looks worn as hell, and the "in god we trust" looks mushy. Also the mint marks prior to 1999 are smaller, so they'd become illegible faster than modern quarters. So I'm guessing yours was made with a normal mint mark and it's just been beat to shit.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Wikipedia_Washington_Quarters_Obverse_Designs.jpg

So it looks like everything except possibly the edge is explainable by heavy wear, especially since it's almost 50 years old. And someone could have done something to the edge, or it could actually have some kind of mint error where the edge didn't get scored. But usually on quarters with a copper core, you can see the whole silver-copper sandwich on the edge. So I don't know there. To me it looks like someone did something to the edge.

My non-expert guess: as long as it is the same size and weight as a regular quarter, it's probably just a regular quarter that's had a long, rough life.

>>298178
Thanks. I figured that the most likely thing with the edge was somebody messing with it. I just didn't want it to sit in a change jar if it was some sort of rare die malfunction or an error with the wrong stock.

>>298167
Avid coin collector here.
It just looks like wear and tear.
Not likely to be a mint error.
Most mint errors are misaligned dies.
+american coins are usually shittily minted despite some of them being minted by Canada which is weird because Canada mints some of the best made coins in the world.