1868 5C Die Variety?

lkenefic

Hello Everyone

This is a newp from the Baltimore Show. I know there are many die varieties of this issue, but I've not seen anything remotely like this. Any ideas what is going on here? Thanks!

oih82w8

I believe that @howards is an authority on Shield Nickel varieties.

DIMEMAN

I've seen this before. I think it is clashing, but not sure.

jmlanzaf

fascinating...

lkenefic

Dime... I thought clashed at first too, but the lines on that aspect of the shield don't match up to the lines on the "5"... they're perpendicular.

Walkerguy21D

Clashing is my thought also - cool, but not truly a die variety...though of course the die was changed from the clash and subsequent repolishing.

jmlanzaf

It's not only on the "5", I see it on the stars also and I think at least one of the letters. It is also odd (to me) that it is only near design devices and not in the field. Although could they have polished away the lines in the fields?

FredWeinberg

I had the same about 4-5 years ago.

It's not rare or scarce, if I can remember what Howard
told me at the time.

Looks cool, but apparently not a big deal.....I think........

StrikeOutXXX

I think Howard calls them die fatigue spikes.

jmlanzaf

@StrikeOutXXX said:
I think Howard calls them die fatigue spikes.

That's interesting. Nickel is a hard metal. So the idea is that die is starting to fail and cracking near the incuse (on the die) devices? They seem almost too regular, and plentiful.

lkenefic

Yes, the Stars and the I in AMERICA also show this sort of fatigue in the die. Here are a couple of close ups...

yosclimber

We discussed this one year ago:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/984250/whats-the-cause-of-these-marks-on-a-shield-nickel

StrikeOutXXX

@yosclimber said:
We discussed this a few years ago - I'll try to find the thread.

Here was one at coin talk. Think @Insider2 is the insider from that thread as well.

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/1868-nickel-error.281484/

jmlanzaf

@StrikeOutXXX said:

@yosclimber said:
We discussed this a few years ago - I'll try to find the thread.

Here was one at coin talk. Think @Insider2 is the insider from that thread as well.

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/1868-nickel-error.281484/

Thanks, that was interesting. I was not at all surprised to see that Insider has not changed one bit.

I must say, however, that I'm still unsure if there is any resolution to the debate.

Insider2

IMO, the cause of this characteristic is still unsure. They are not from a clashed die.

I disagree 100% with the Nickel expert. There is no possible way this is die fatigue. Coins struck with worn dies do not look like this - EVER! Tool marks look like this. I believe a member suggested marks from a coarse file.

jmlanzaf

@Insider2 said:
IMO, the cause of this characteristic is still unsure. They are not from a clashed die.

I disagree 100% with the Nickel expert. There is no possible way this is die fatigue. Coins struck with worn dies do not look like this - EVER! Tool marks look like this. I believe a member suggested marks from a coarse file.

Damn it! I'm prone to agree with you.

I don't know how to handle what I'm feeling right now...

Sonorandesertrat

Insider2 raises an important point. Crumbling dies should not display this peculiar directionality in multiple places. File marks on the die make a lot of sense.

lkenefic

Thanks for all the information. There's a lot to consider here. I don't think die clash either since the affected area is at the top aspect of the 5. Die fatigue could be plausible since the metal they used was significantly harder than silver thus flow lines may come up differently as well. Gouges? Too many?

Interesting, and thanks for the link to the other thread...

Insider2

@lkenefic said: "Die fatigue could be plausible since the metal they used was significantly harder than silver thus flow lines may come up differently as well."

I disagree. Coins exist in all types of alloys. The only coins I've seen where the metal flow and consequently the die wear was not in a radial direction occurs on those struck using a screw press. Check out a British Trade dollar struck in Bombay.

Sonorandesertrat

"The only coins I've seen where the metal flow and consequently the die wear was not in a radial direction occurs on those struck using a screw press."

Coins struck using a rocker press will also exhibit this non-radial pattern.

Insider2

If a "rocker press" is the same as a "Roller Press" I agree. If I recall, they seldom have defined flow, more like a squeeze.

Sonorandesertrat

Yes, I have seen both terms used interchangeably.

lkenefic

Then, that leaves gouges that are omnipresent and not polished from the final die. Was this die maker fired the next day? ;-)

Sonorandesertrat

From a Government job? Fat chance.

CaptHenway

@yosclimber said:
We discussed this one year ago:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/984250/whats-the-cause-of-these-marks-on-a-shield-nickel

I have nothing new to add to this.

DIMEMAN

@jmlanzaf said:
It's not only on the "5", I see it on the stars also and I think at least one of the letters. It is also odd (to me) that it is only near design devices and not in the field. Although could they have polished away the lines in the fields?

I was thinking that was because of the hasty and not through job of polishing of the unwanted stuff.

MikeInFL

Those features sure remind me of die gouges like one would find on a reworked large cent.

ricko

This topic has come up more than once (thanks for the link above) and I do not believe we have ever reached a conclusive decision. Cheers, RickO

Kkathyl

that is really cool

lkenefic

Thanks for all of the information. I knew that the Shield Nickels would be an interesting lot for a type collector. Clearly the specimen I acquired has this quality. It's a welcomed addition to my 7070...