Should the 2006 Jefferson Nickels be Included in the Westward Journey Registry Sets?
winesteven
Posts: 4,548 ✭✭✭✭✭
In the PCGS Registry Set for the Jefferson Westward Journey series, they appropriately include the four Westward Journey themed reverse designs - two in 2004, and two in 2005 (a new obverse design was used in 2005). Starting in 2006 and going forward, the reverse design reverted back to the old Monticello, but a newer obverse was started in 2006, and is used through today. The PCGS Registry set requires the 2006 Jefferson's in the Westward Journey set, even though the design has nothing to do with the West, lol. (Another Registry is doing the same, since that's what PCGS is doing). The coins are cheap, but that is not the point.
The U.S. Mint refers to the Jefferson Westward Journey series as being only for 2004-2005. Here's their hotlink:
https://www.usmint.gov/learn/coin-and-medal-programs/westward-journey-nickel-series
Don't be influenced by my position, which is obvious, but share your thoughts. Thanks.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
Comments
Siding with the Mint’s intent on this question.
“The thrill of the hunt never gets old”
PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
Copperindian
Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
Copperindian
@winesteven
I have this 5 coin set in proof PR70 Dcam coins. Both are number 1 sets listed on the Pcgs and MyCollect registries.
I feel that the 2006 Monticello Jefferson coin should not be part of this set.
The obverse changed but not the reverse on the 2006 so I have no understanding of why it was included into this set.
Maybe some forum members have a better understanding of why it was and will share this info.
Wayne
Kennedys are my quest...
The Westward Journey reverses are a major change and should be included.
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
Absolutely, and they are indeed included in that set on the 2004 and 2005 coins. But the 2006 has a Monticello reverse. I see your vote that 2006 coin should not be included in the Westward Journey set. To me, that makes sense.
Thanks.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
This is a non-issue for me as I don't collect modern nickels beyond type needs, but I don't see any good reason to include the 2006 coins.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
In the Mega Red 3rd ed. pg. 590 is where you will find your answer from a mint spokesperson. Yes, the 2006 nickels are included in the Westward Journey series.
@Snaps
Can you provide a link so we can read the info.
Thanks
Wayne
Kennedys are my quest...
I did a little more investigating.
While I do not know 'why/when' it happened, I could find several Mint 'press releases', dated close to the release of the 2006 coin, that indicate the Mint considers the 2006 release to be part of the series.
Example #1:
Source: https://www.usmint.gov/news/press-releases/20050728-mint-announces-return-to-monticello-nickel
Example #2:
Source: https://www.usmint.gov/news/press-releases/20060327-return-to-monticello-nickel-first-day-coin-cover-available
Example #3:
Source: https://www.usmint.gov/news/press-releases/20060721-nation-gets-second-chance-to-buy-historic-nickels
Edited - The second paragraph contained a factual error. It has been corrected.
Since my vote was guided by the Mint’s opinion and/or reasons for the 2006 inclusion, I’m changing my vote to “yes, they should be part of Registry”. Good info @MetroD!
“The thrill of the hunt never gets old”
PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
Copperindian
Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
Copperindian
I don't have a link to my Mega Red. It was a press release on July 28, 2005 at the ANA convention held in San Fransisco that year. The mint spokeperson for the press release was Micheal White. The 3rd edition Mega Red is geared towards nickels and this press release is in the book. The mint page in the OP doesn't say the 2006 coins are not Westward Journey nickels. I do believe @winesteven also has a complete set of Mega Reds.
It would mean a lot more if the mint website had the same info.
There is no language in the bill the authorized the Westward Journey series that even mentions the year 2006.
07/28/05 Mint Press Release: https://www.usmint.gov/news/press-releases/20050728-mint-announces-return-to-monticello-nickel
That is about verbatim of what Micheal White said at the ANA Convention.
Looks like Business Strike 2006-P Jefferson nickels are pricey at the MS67FS grade. Only 9 in this lofty grade at PCGS.
I agree.
BEST GUESS - the status of the 2006 release changed at some point prior to release, and the Mint simply failed to update the cited page.
Edited for clarity.
Location: Bottom of 1st page - Top of 2nd Page
Source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-108publ15/pdf/PLAW-108publ15.pdf
This just returns it back to original, not real mention of being Westward Journey or the recognition of the Bicentennial westward journey is based.
It's clear that the Mint considered the 2006 nickels to be part of the set at the time they were released. Bags and two-roll P and D sets of these coins were available from the Mint. The pictures below are from an eBay listing. Link
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
I fat-fingered my response.
The 2003 Coinage Act is the enabling law for both the Westward Journey coins and the 2006 redesign. The two are clearly differentiated in the law. They are very different types notwithstanding the mint’s decision to market them together.
I find it interesting that even though the PCGS Registry Set for the Westward Journey Jefferson’s include the 2006 coins, the PCGS Price Guide excludes the 2006’s from the Type 3 “Westward Journey” category for both the Mint State and Proof Versions, and clearly categorizes the 2006’s as part of the Type 4, “Return to Monticello” category!
To me, it still appears that 2006 should not be included in the Westward Journey designs, despite the Mint’s change of heart in their marketing campaigns.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
Interesting topic. I always thought of the Westward Journey designs as just the four with a final new design in 2006. Pulling out my Mega Red 3rd edition, they label each nickel 2004 and 2005 as Westward Journey Nickels and 2006 as Modified Nickels. However...on page 581 in the introdution to the series:
"The American 5-Cent Coin Continuity Act of 2003 provided for five special reverses to be used on Jefferson nickels in 2004, 2005, and 2006, to observe the Lewis and Clark travels."
and as @Snaps mentioned on page 590 according to Michael White, long time Mint spokesman in a press release:
Perhaps if the 2007 began a new design, we'd feel better about including 2006 in the WJ series... how is the fifth design special if it's just the beginning of the new change? Maybe the set should have the last design of 2003, the four designs of 2004 and 2005, and the start of the new design in 2006??
FWIW, I agree with your opinion. For me, the 2006 release is a return to normal, as opposed to one that recognizes the LA Purchase and L&C expedition.
That said, I also understand how PCGS handled the issue.
SET
This is how PCGS defines a "set".
Source: https://www.pcgs.com/lingo/s
Given this definition, I understand why PCGS included the 2006 issue in the registry set (i.e., per the U.S. Mint, the 2006 issue was part of "a collection from a particular Mint").
TYPE
This is how PCGS defines a "type".
Source: https://www.pcgs.com/lingo/t
Given this definition, I understand why PCGS assigned a different type number to the 2006, and subsequent, issues (i.e,, the design changed).
Sounds like the bill simply stipulated what would happen after 2004/5, a return to the normal reverse. Somehow that has been understood to mean that 2006 is part of the commemorative series.
I believe the mint sold special sets of the L&C nickels and that those sets did not include 2006.
@JBK
"I believe the mint sold special sets of the L&C nickels and that those sets did not include 2006."
The original legislation prohibited the sale of the 2004 and 2005 releases after 12/31/05. So, a complete Mint-defined set, 2004-2006, would not have been possible, at least initially.
Mid-2006 legislation ultimately allowed for the sale of 2004 and 2005 issues after the 12/31/05 deadline. Per the reference, the Mint planned to use this opportunity to liquidate remaining inventory.
Reference: https://www.usmint.gov/news/press-releases/20060721-nation-gets-second-chance-to-buy-historic-nickels
Interesting...
But for me, those provisions sort of confirm that the 04/05 nickels were distinctly separate from the 06.
BTW, l liked those little sets they sold.
To me, it still sounds like "Marketing" by the US Mint to include the 2006 nickel after the fact. Westward Journey coins were all about the new reverses!!!! 2006 went back to the old reverse, which continues to today. While my friend @MetroD agrees the PCGS Price Guide excludes the 2006 from the prices of the Type 3 Westward Journey Series, and properly puts the 2006 along with all subsequent dates as Type 4, that different "Type" means a lot more to me than it apparently does to some others.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
No skin in this game, since I don't have any of those nickels outside of what might be in a stack of proof sets or in my change bucket, but saying the 2005 is part of the series when it's no different than later dates is just yet another distinction without a difference so common in this hobby nowadays. Why not also include 2003 to commemorate the Louisiana Purchase and commissioning of the L&C expedition?
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Upon reflection it seems pretty silly to have a distinct registry set for the Westward Journey nickels, with or without the 2006 “return to Monticello”.
Great topic, and ensuing discussion. Thanks for posting it.
Let me start by reiterating the fact that I agree with you. IMHO, the 2006 issue should not be included in the WJ set. In short, I believe 2006 to be a return to normal, not part of the bicentennial celebration, based on the design.
Excellent point about "type". In this 'case/context', I consider the 'type' designation to simply be a mechanism for categorizing by design. Using this definition, the 2006 , and 'matching' subsequent issues, would be in the same 'bucket'.
PCGS decided to include the 2006 issue in the WJ set. This decision was probably influenced by the Mint officially declaring it to be part of the series, whatever their rationale. Regardless, whether we, or others here, disagree with this decision, I have no idea if PCGS would be willing to revisit it.
Any plans to contact PCGS about the subject, or have you already done this?
No plans at all to discuss it with PCGS. The stimulus for this discussion was due to another Registry that defined this small Registry Set on the PCGS model, lol. I mentioned this to some extent in the OP, but I posted it here to get the views of a larger collector pool.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
2006 nickels were issued by three mints. I believe the composition of the registry set was based on the other two definitions, "a collection of coins in a series" and "a collection of types".
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
You're absolutely right; I posted the wrong justification to support my position (i.e., "a collection from a particular Mint", as opposed to "a collection of coins in a series").
Appreciate the constructive feedback.
Interesting thread.