Newps: 1880 3 Cent Nickel - Missing Ribbons - Is this anything noteworthy?
ProofCollection
Posts: 6,252 ✭✭✭✭✭
I have never collected 3CNs and bought this because it looked cool and was priced right from poor photos but was reassured by the CAC sticker. It arrived today and I was checking it out and comparing it to all of the pictures in Coinfacts and noticed mine is seriously missing some bits of ribbon. Being new to this series I'm not aware of any die variety guides or if this is something noteworthy. To me it seems like the 3-Legged Buffalo where the ribbon and leaf must have been polished away from the die. Is this anything special?
The closest I found was this example in Coinfacts but its ribbon is far more present:
https://www.pcgs.com/cert/37191869
4
Comments
This is a known variety but not one that has ever generated much collector interest.
It's a good example of an over-polished die, but probably doesn't increase the value of the coin. Clashed dies are common in the three cent nickel series, so polishing to remove clash marks was also common. The mint was trying to extend the life of the dies, already shortened by the hard copper-nickel alloy of the planchets. Nice coin!
Three cent CNs don't usually clash in that spot on the reverse.
The clash marks are usually in the fields around the head and around the III.
There's a good chance this proof die was used early in the year and had not been used on business strikes yet.
I have seen similar ribbon weakness on some seated half dimes, and I wonder if it might be due to a slightly angled
working hub, when it was pressed into the die?
This coin is similar to what Gifford called 1880 B05, page 354.
He described 2 proof die pairs, but did not note missing ribbon features.
https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/book/555545
Wow, thanks. Having looked at ALL of the Coinfacts photos for the proof, mine matches exactly every photo. Do you think my coin is a misidentified Proof? And how would I confirm it beyond this? I guess though it is this B05 variety, not a proof.
After looking at this further, the obverse coronet and S tripling matches the proof and MS images also. Interesting. I might have been looking at the wrong coin in CF. I guess the MS and PR shared the dies pretty well.
Most likely, the B05 was struck in both proof and and business strike, and Gifford did not describe one of the proof dies correctly.
Since your coin is in a PCGS MS holder, it's most likely a MS, not proof.
The S tripling might be Longacre doubling - shoulder of the punch when making the master die.
Neat coin.
If it is a Proof, would PCGS make the correction and reimburse the owner for the value difference?
TPGs think they can differentiate with this series between proof and unc and even with all the denticle diagnostics they cannot or are inconsistent.
Just leave it, it's a nice coin in a nice holder.
Highly recommend John Dannreuther's book on proof nickel coinage. He mentions that due to heavy use, the reverse die for this year has less detail than any other in the series. Yours looks like his JD1 obverse. Dannreuther notes that this obverse die is the same as Gifford's P01 and B05 dies. This is a contradiction to Gifford who states that the B05 for was only used for business strikes. Unfortunately Dannreuther doesn't mention any die state specifics on how to differentiate between proof and business strikes for this year.