How was this "1950-D" Nickel "Minted"? ::Arrived::

braddick

I've seen plenty of oversized- usually 3" novelty coins over the years.
For a Jefferson nickel they usually look something like this:

This one though is the first I've seen that looks genuine other than being oversized a bit.
It is 1 1/2".
How was this produced/minted?

Seller's photos:

leothelyon

At the US Mint, they go through a process/stages to reduce the size of the image until they reach the size to coin size. Perhaps those larger size imaged dies are used for novelty purposes.

Leo

MsMorrisine

i also vote novelty and with reverse corrosion more fitting on a cent

TomB

Looks like two halves that are put together. Check out the rim disturbance that might indicate medallic alignment, as well.

braddick

I should be receiving this one within a week. Hopefully I will have an update then.
I am curious what it is made of and like Tom pointed out, if it was two halves joined together.

Namvet69

Curious, my swag is that it's white metal based on the rim disturbances. Good luck

CaptHenway

Can we please see an edge-on shop of the bump on the edge at 6 o'clock?

JBK

That's about the size of a silver dollar. I'd guess it was struck over a Morgan dollar. 😲😆

Where's that poster who "discovered" all those overstruck vintage Canadian coins...he'd have a compelling theory.

davewesen

I vote for made via lost wax casting.

braddick

@CaptHenway said:
Can we please see an edge-on shop of the bump on the edge at 6 o'clock?

Absolutely. It should be arriving within a few days and I will take photos then.

TwoSides2aCoin

I don’t think it was minted or struck. I vote cast in a mold. Like die cast. That’s my guess.

ChrisH821

I think the underlying question is how was a nickel reproduced (at least relatively) accurately at 2X+ scale.
What I find interesting is that it has a mintmark, so someone created this from an already struck coin, or less likely, from a prepared die.

CaptHenway

@ChrisH821 said:

I think the underlying question is how was a nickel reproduced (at least relatively) accurately at 2X+ scale.
What I find interesting is that it has a mintmark, so someone created this from an already struck coin, or less likely, from a prepared die.

Indeed the copying of the design is impressively accurate. The maker might have access to a pantograph machine of some sort, though I can't rule out the possibility that he started with a 1950 plain obverse coin and a common D-mint reverse coin and pounded them out "Texas coin" style and then used the enlarged coins to make casting molds.

davewesen

You could pound out a nickel to double diameter? Can you pound it out to same diameter as quarter?
How about using a hydraulic press, how many tons pressure would be needed?

CaptHenway

@davewesen said:
You could pound out a nickel to double diameter? Can you pound it out to same diameter as quarter?
How about using a hydraulic press, how many tons pressure would be needed?

No idea. Just spitballing possibilities.

CRHer700

@davewesen said:
You could pound out a nickel to double diameter? Can you pound it out to same diameter as quarter?
How about using a hydraulic press, how many tons pressure would be needed?

That's more the size of a half dollar.

dcarr

If you take a physical coin and stretch it larger, and/or make a silicone rubber mold and stretch that, the result is a reduction in relief height. I don't see that reduction on the piece in question. Note the IKE dollars in this picture (left: normal - right: stretched and lower relief).

So I think the large 1950-D Jefferson was made by some method other then stretching. A crude 3D pantograph (reduction/enlargement lathe) is a possibility. It does, however, appear to be a casting. There appears to be the remnants of a sprue at 6:00.

jmlanzaf

@dcarr said:
If you take a physical coin and stretch it larger, and/or make a silicone rubber mold and stretch that, the result is a reduction in relief height. I don't see that reduction on the piece in question. Note the IKE dollars in this picture (left: normal - right: stretched and lower relief).

So I think the large 1950-D Jefferson was made by some method other then stretching. A crude 3D pantograph (reduction/enlargement lathe) is a possibility. It does, however, appear to be a casting. There appears to be the remnants of a sprue at 6:00.

I agree with casting.

I'm also not sure why people think it is that hard for someone to copy a nickel design. It's not that detailed of a design. There are thousands of beautifully executed tokens and medals - you've made some - where the engraver did original work. They only need to have seen a Jefferson nickel.

jmlanzaf

@ChrisH821 said:

I think the underlying question is how was a nickel reproduced (at least relatively) accurately at 2X+ scale.
What I find interesting is that it has a mintmark, so someone created this from an already struck coin, or less likely, from a prepared die.

I don't follow this at all. Many of these oversized novelties are made for "key date" coins. A 1950-D qualifies. The engraver need only have seen pictures of a nickel to recreate it. Those 3 inch 1877 Indian cents or 1913 nickels are created from molds that are not made from anything but pictures.

Namvet69

I have a 1924 bronze medal that bears a production technique called Cameograph©. A short lived process of physiognotrace ("tracing the face"). Just a thought.

ChrisH821

@jmlanzaf said:

@ChrisH821 said:

I think the underlying question is how was a nickel reproduced (at least relatively) accurately at 2X+ scale.
What I find interesting is that it has a mintmark, so someone created this from an already struck coin, or less likely, from a prepared die.

I don't follow this at all. Many of these oversized novelties are made for "key date" coins. A 1950-D qualifies. The engraver need only have seen pictures of a nickel to recreate it. Those 3 inch 1877 Indian cents or 1913 nickels are created from molds that are not made from anything but pictures.

My point is that large novelty coins always have a cartoonishly bad look, proportions or relative relief is always wrong. This appears to have been made by somehow making a mold of an existing coin at ~2x scale to make this copy, rather than hand engraving a new one. The mint mark is an indication, not proof, that the mold was made by copying a coin.
If Braddick had shown us this 'coin' with no context, people would probably have identified it as a cast copy, if you show one of those big novelty coins without context, people would immediately say it's a bad fake or correctly ID it as a large novelty coin, quite different.

AMRC

I do not think it was minted. It was poured.

jmlanzaf

@ChrisH821 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@ChrisH821 said:

I think the underlying question is how was a nickel reproduced (at least relatively) accurately at 2X+ scale.
What I find interesting is that it has a mintmark, so someone created this from an already struck coin, or less likely, from a prepared die.

I don't follow this at all. Many of these oversized novelties are made for "key date" coins. A 1950-D qualifies. The engraver need only have seen pictures of a nickel to recreate it. Those 3 inch 1877 Indian cents or 1913 nickels are created from molds that are not made from anything but pictures.

My point is that large novelty coins always have a cartoonishly bad look, proportions or relative relief is always wrong. This appears to have been made by somehow making a mold of an existing coin at ~2x scale to make this copy, rather than hand engraving a new one. The mint mark is an indication, not proof, that the mold was made by copying a coin.
If Braddick had shown us this 'coin' with no context, people would probably have identified it as a cast copy, if you show one of those big novelty coins without context, people would immediately say it's a bad fake or correctly ID it as a large novelty coin, quite different.

I do not think this was made from a coin, other than by looking at one. The engraver of this one was simply more skilled than most.

Mr_Spud

Maybe the same technique was used as this one, if this one is real. I’m guessing that the photo is of a real coin and the sign doesn’t look like this, but after reading this thread I’m not sure anymore. I viewed this auction a while back and the seller somehow knew I viewed it and sent me an offer. It says they have 4 available and that they already sold one.

Mr_Spud

This one too 🤔

Overdate

Could the 1950-D nickel have been created using a 3D printer? The software in many 3D printers allows the user to scale the size of the printed output up or down.

jmlanzaf

@Overdate said:
Could the 1950-D nickel have been created using a 3D printer? The software in many 3D printers allows the user to scale the size of the printed output up or down.

Interesting thought. It looks cast but I suppose you could print a giant nickel to make a mold.

braddick

If you look at the first set of photos you would think this Jefferson nickel is a low grade authentic coin.
The second set of photos show it placed on a PCGS slab so you can get an idea of its true size.

It appears to be a bonded pair of impressions.
I am still unclear as to how it was made and why.

IkesT

It does appear to be a very accurate reproduction/enlargement of the original nickel design, so I'd also vote for the pantograph explanation.

MsMorrisine

confirm there is a seam on the edge

Overdate

Any clue as to the metallic content?