Possible 'hubbed-in debris' error on a 1961 proof nickel. Thoughts?
wrthtuppence
Posts: 29 ✭
I don't deal with proofs very often so I'm not as familiar with the die manufacturing process. This coin has on its reverse what appears to be a strike-through (indeed, that's what it was sold to me as) but on closer inspection, the anomaly is in relief - not incused. What's more, the frosting of the Monticello seems to continue over top the anomaly, suggesting it was in place before the frosting was added.
Hopefully it shows up well enough in the images but the anomaly appears as a tiny squiggle (like a fiber) over the third column of the Monticello, right in the middle of the reverse design. It does seem to be part of the coin and not just something stuck to the surface though I don't currently have access to a proper microscope for better inspection.
What are your thoughts about this being a hubbed-in bit of foreign material? My understanding is that hubbed-in debris errors are not that common so is there a more likely explanation in the case of this nickel?
Thanks!
Comments
Probably just a die crack. I hope you didn't pay much.
Didn't pay much. I thought it could be a die crack but it kind of just starts and stops abruptly in the middle of the design, which is confusing to me.
Also, the fact that the frosting appears to have affected the anomaly as much as the rest of the design.
Real thin retained wire strike through?
@AlanSki I wouldn't expect it to be sticking out like that if it were a retained strike through. It looks to be of the same material as the rest of the coin.
It looks like a hubbed-in fiber to me.
On modern US coins, they seem to appear more on 1950's and 60's proof and SMS issues. I think it's neat. I have an example of an early 60's proof quarter and dime with hubbed-in fibers, but had not seen your particular nickel variety before.
@IkesT Interesting, so this isn't an uncommon occurrence for this period? Like I said originally, I don't have much experience with proofs in general. You wouldn't happen to have pics of your coins would you? I'd like to have a comparison for my nickle.
A struck thru would be struck into the coin, not rise above the surface.
I'll have to find those coins and see if I can get decent photos with my old usb microscope.
In the meantime, here's a fun example on someone else's coin:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1966-SMS-ROOSEVELT-DIME-WITH-5-ON-THE-CHEEK-NEW-DISCOVERY-/191639695584
This 1966 SMS dime appears to have another squiggly hubbed-in fiber (that happens to be in the shape of a 5) on Roosevelt's cheek. This variety was found by Robert Lawson. I don't know if he has sold any for the price he is asking on eBay, but it's a fun variety to look for, in any case.
Cool! Has there been a case where one of these varieties was verified with more than one coin? Presumably, if something were struck into the working die, it would show up more than once, but I don't know if maybe the quality control for proofs and SMS coins is sufficient to catch hubbed-in stuff early?
Yes, that particular dime, for one. The smaller the imperfection, the less likely anyone would catch it. So you are correct that when you find a coin like this with a particular die marker, the expectation is that you should be able to find more with the same mark.
Thread like impressions appear on Morgan dollars.
http://ec2-13-58-222-16.us-east-2.compute.amazonaws.com/wiki/Thread-Like_Impressions
Looks like a die crack.
Will this help ?
You could be right.... Need better pictures though... Perhaps @FredWeinberg will comment here. Cheers, RickO
The "Crater Snake" - An example on a 1973-S silver proof Eisenhower dollar:
https://www.ikegroup.info/DIVA listings/1973 S Silver Proof/3SP-401.pdf
