Home U.S. Coin Forum

Contemporary or Modern Carving?

braddickbraddick Posts: 24,148 ✭✭✭✭✭

Looking at this one and am leaning toward it be an older carving yet for the life of me can't figure out the style or artist.
Your thoughts?

peacockcoins

Comments

  • JBKJBK Posts: 15,730 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Details seem to be chiseled. Seems like they did not change too much except chop off her nose.

  • CameonutCameonut Posts: 7,302 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Just like with hobo nickels, I am at a loss to determine the age of any carving (other than maybe within the last decade).

    “In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson

    My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!

  • TomBTomB Posts: 21,376 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'd go with "in between". If I recall correctly, most of the contemporary Buffalo nickels with carvings had strong (EF or so) details prior to carving and this coin appears to fit that criteria. Also, the aesthetics of this piece seem to be more aligned with art prior to 1960, or thereabouts, rather than after. However, the altered portion seems to have removed a rather thick layer of patina, which would have taken a while to typically build up on the surface. Therefore, I go with somewhere in the middle for time frame.

    Thomas Bush Numismatics & Numismatic Photography

    In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson

    image
  • 291fifth291fifth Posts: 24,390 ✭✭✭✭✭

    An unsuccessful attempt to turn it into a 1933-34 Chicago Century of Progress looking piece. The carver butchered the nose.

    I'll bet that is when it dates from.

    All glory is fleeting.
  • ChrisH821ChrisH821 Posts: 6,535 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @CaptHenway said:
    Impossible to say, but does look like an attempt at an art deco style.

    Exactly my thought as well.

    Collector, occasional seller

  • rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It looks like there was some damage to the area in front of the face that was removed, and then continued with modifications... Looks like something from the 60's/70's....Cheers, RickO

  • 291fifth291fifth Posts: 24,390 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @ricko said:
    It looks like there was some damage to the area in front of the face that was removed, and then continued with modifications... Looks like something from the 60's/70's....Cheers, RickO

    The base coin itself does not show much wear. By the 1960's it would have been very unusual to find a 1918 Mercury dime with that little wear in circulation. I'm sticking with my guess that it dates from the 1930's.

    All glory is fleeting.
  • braddickbraddick Posts: 24,148 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Here's the reverse:

    peacockcoins

  • Insider2Insider2 Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭

    hONEST opinion...

    On a piece as this, does it really matter? Looks like an older carving.

  • 291fifth291fifth Posts: 24,390 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Finding a 1918-S dime in that condition in the 1960's would have been a really rare event. I'm sticking with 1930's for the carving.

    All glory is fleeting.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file