Can you explain what may have caused the color of this coin.

Dr_Bones

This coin which has been designated as J-1451A has been found by metal testing to have the normal metal content of a regular issue three cent nickel piece. It was submitted as a regular strike in the 7/26/1980 NASCA James David Duncan sale. I am suspecting based on its unusual color it was submitted and characterized as a pattern felt to be of copper origin at that time. It will now need to be delisted as a pattern. Does anyone have an explanation for what may have caused this coin to have this appearance?
As an interesting side note. Metal testing has shown a number of the 3C patterns that I have submitted have a much different metal content than what has historically been recorded.

1madman

Wet humid storage conditions over decades. You can see the green corrosion on both sides too (majority on the obverse). Probably stored in a safe with poor climate control, in the southern US, for a generation.

Might want to consider a conservation on that coin.

ricko

High humidity and temperature are the likely culprits on that coin. Cheers, RickO

Zoins

@Dr_Bones said:
This coin which has been designated as J-1451A has been found by metal testing to have the normal metal content of a regular issue three cent nickel piece. It was submitted as a regular strike in the 7/26/1980 NASCA James David Duncan sale. I am suspecting based on its unusual color it was submitted and characterized as a pattern felt to be of copper origin at that time. It will now need to be delisted as a pattern. Does anyone have an explanation for what may have caused this coin to have this appearance?

As an interesting side note. Metal testing has shown a number of the 3C patterns that I have submitted have a much different metal content than what has historically been recorded.

Great information and research @Dr_Bones!

I see this is also in the Bourne collection so this is a Duncan-Simpson-Bourne coin.

Zoins

Here's the description from USPatterns.com:

USPatterns.com said:
J1451A/P1598

Although described as regular dies trial pieces, these were actually deliberately struck for sale to collectors as part of complete off-metal sets.

Only a single example, ex NASCA 7/80, Simpson collection, is confirmed and is illustrated above.

Photo courtesy of PCGS.

Zoins

Here's the description from Heritage:

Heritage said:
1876 Three Cent Nickel in Copper
PR63 Brown
Judd-1451a, The Only Known Example

1876 3C Three Cent Nickel, Judd-1451a, Pollock-1598, R.8, PR63 Brown PCGS. Ex: Simpson. A dies trial piece from the regular three cent nickel dies for the year. Struck in copper with a plain edge. According to Andrew Pollock and USPatterns.com, this is the only known example of Judd-1451a. Only one or two off-metal coinage sets were produced in copper for the year 1876. Until 1980, when this pattern turned up, it was the only denomination for the year unknown in copper. Odds are this piece was produced specifically for Mint Director Henry Linderman.

Glossy brown surfaces reveal peach-gold and violet accents. The obverse fields show a few traces of verdigris, which is surely the only imperfection standing in the way of an even higher grade. However, condition becomes somewhat secondary when dealing with unique pieces. As far as we can tell, this is the first public offering of the unique Judd-1451a pattern since 1980. Another highlight from the incomparable Bob R. Simpson Collection.

Ex: James David Duncan Collection (NASCA, 7/1980), lot 92.

Zoins

This is the current TrueView which has a darker representation.

Dr_Bones

Thanks for the insight all. I suspected that there was possibly an easy explanation. Unfortunately, turns out in an effort to complete the collection, an expensive turn of events.
However, it has been a 46 year quest to complete the collection and the research including metal testing has yielded surprising results and has been very gratifying. I am now ready to submit my book on 3C patterns for publication.
In all will be 340 pages, will 6000 auction records, 1000 FPL sales. I will propose, the combining of 4 pattern designations to 2, I will propose the elimination of 6 of the Judd numbers with possible addition of 4 more. I will propose splitting 2 of the current Judd designations into 2 more based on metal testing or significant die differences. I will propose changing the rarity levels on 46 of the 70 collectible. Not exactly sure how and when I went from a collector to being obsessed. But I seem to see a lot of that same trait here on the forums.

Zoins

@Dr_Bones said:
Thanks for the insight all. I suspected that there was possibly an easy explanation. Unfortunately, turns out in an effort to complete the collection, an expensive turn of events.

However, it has been a 46 year quest to complete the collection and the research including metal testing has yielded surprising results and has been very gratifying. I am now ready to submit my book on 3C patterns for publication.

In all will be 340 pages, will 6000 auction records, 1000 FPL sales. I will propose, the combining of 4 pattern designations to 2, I will propose the elimination of 6 of the Judd numbers with possible addition of 4 more. I will propose splitting 2 of the current Judd designations into 2 more based on metal testing or significant die differences. I will propose changing the rarity levels on 46 of the 70 collectible. Not exactly sure how and when I went from a collector to being obsessed. But I seem to see a lot of that same trait here on the forums.

That sounds like a lot of research! I can't wait to see your book!

Have you chatted with Saul or Andy about the proposed changes to Judd?

coinsarefun

I might be wrong but it has the same look many medals and tokens I have from being stored in a leather pouch for years.
Add humidity and that’s what it look like to me.

Dr_Bones

@Zoins said:

That sounds like a lot of research! I can't wait to see your book!

Have you chatted with Saul or Andy about the proposed changes to Judd?

They are very aware of my project and have provided me good advice and insight. The Judd changes will need to be debated by those who make the decisions. I believe I can make strong arguments for many, others I will make suggestions in my book. Having the documentation and rationale by just being written down may be sufficient if further information can be uncovered in the future..

Namvet69

Impressive effort on this issue. This is why I love to examine coins! Thanks for sharing. Peace Roy

MrEureka

First, because most of the other denominations are known in "copper", I'm reasonably sure a similar 3CN was struck, so I would not de-list it from Judd.

Second, I wouldn't be so quick to give up on your coin. One unlikely possibility is that your piece is copper plated. Another, that it's some sort of experimental piece. And perhaps there's some other possible explanation. If it were mine, I'd be itching to have some of the other 1876 "copper" regular dies trial pieces, especially the gold denominations. (A 19th century numismatist copper plating proof gold coins to create rare copper die trials seems an unlikely scenario, especially because the weight would be so obviously wrong for copper.) If the other deominations test out the same as your piece, you'll be onto something pretty cool.

Cougar1978

Long term reaction to atmosphere. Heat, humidity, salt air, biological attack are all factors that come into play (Coin Preservation Handbook). Then modern times - PVC . I have seen freshly dipped WLH with blazing super luster go bad in holder in just 6 mo bc of PVC flip submission by submitter.

The 3c has held up ok, but certainly not original (as pristine) when it came out of the mint after over a century exposed to the atmosphere. The tarnish could be worse. Don’t they just write it up nicely huh? Really neat holder label, pedigree.

jesbroken

I have a 1935 S Buffalo Nickel with the same or very close appearance with the corrosion(I feel). It was a perfectly clean MS Buff when I bought it 10 or so years ago and after 10 years in an album in a safe that I try to keep at 46% humidity(but honestly cannot say 100% of the time). I would imagine it had some moisture exposure to have these results occur.
Jim

Edited to remove photos. I sold this coin and it is being returned so I had better not provide photos until I receive it back. Sorry
Jim

Dr_Bones

@MrEureka said:
First, because most of the other denominations are known in "copper", I'm reasonably sure a similar 3CN was struck, so I would not de-list it from Judd.

Second, I wouldn't be so quick to give up on your coin. One unlikely possibility is that your piece is copper plated. Another, that it's some sort of experimental piece. And perhaps there's some other possible explanation. If it were mine, I'd be itching to have some of the other 1876 "copper" regular dies trial pieces, especially the gold denominations. (A 19th century numismatist copper plating proof gold coins to create rare copper die trials seems an unlikely scenario, especially because the weight would be so obviously wrong for copper.) If the other deominations test out the same as your piece, you'll be onto something pretty cool.

As always your insight, experience and wisdom are appreciated. As we have spoken, there are certainly discoveries to be made out there, including potentially the one I have shown you. I am convinced of one the 3C patterns that has not ever been certified existing in raw form yet. With the book, I will make my own personal observations, comments and recommendations. It will then at least be in a documented form for others to watch for in the future particularly if not included in upcoming Judd books.. It will be yourself and others that ultimately get to make the call on inclusion or exclusion in Judd. I have been able to find several coins sold, initially listed in Adams Woodin, with sale records that remain out of the Judd listing. Some of the Judd Listings are of coins not having been seen since the late 1800's. So the hard questions become what should be included, excluded or delisted. Not my call and I certainly do not envy yourself and others that take on the arduous task once that time comes again.
While it makes sense for there to be a copper pattern for this year. I am simply looking at the information I have been able to research to make my determination and recommendation. I submitted this particular coin (amongst many others) to try to determine scientifically the composition. In the case of the 1849 series, metal testing turns upside down what has been conventional thought since they were produced in 1849. The composition is not what the mint reported. In this case, this coin was submitted largely based on its unusual appearance
This would be my potential argument for delisting (Trust me, I would desperately love not to make this recommendation as this represents a hit against my collection)
The Metal content came back at 75.22% copper 24.60% Nickel and 0.18% Iron. Now the range of the 10 spots tested for copper was from 74.22% to 76.96%. I must admit I do not know the effect of copper plating on metal composition but based on our current cent copper plating, would intuitively expect it to be raised a few percent over the typical nickel coin composition. Perhaps this is a flawed assumption. I did not metal test any of the 1870s copper patterns.
What I know based on research of the copper 3C patterns in this time span
Year Judd Number AW Specimens 1st auction # of Auction appearances 1913 ANS Brand collection
1871 J-1045 1203 3-4 1942 16 Y Y
1872 J-1185 1276 2-3 1892 8 Y Y
1873 J-1260 1356 2-3 1882 12 Y Y
1874 J-1348 1395 1 1954 4 Y Y
1875 J-1385 1460 2-3 1913 16 Y Y
1876 J-1451A None 1 1980 2 N N

So while this certainly does not preclude it being a pattern and while it would make sense for 3C pattern to exist in this year. The lack of inclusion in Adams-Woodin, or in the Brand collection and its metal content being consistent with regular issue 3C nickels has me leaning towards determining that this specimen may not be a pattern and as it is the only specimen towards the delisting. FYI I am certainly will be holding onto it , because as you have alluded to there may be an alternative explanation for its appearance. And your other thoughts certainly give me more to think of.
Thanks