How in the world did ANACS know the date of this coin?
MrEureka
Posts: 24,419 ✭✭✭✭✭
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
0
Comments
Coin was submitted in original mint packaging?
Russ, NCNE
Free Trial
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
<< <i>Well, the mint mark was moved to the obverse in 1968; and, since it's missing from the reverse, the coin was struck in '68 or later. There were subsequent modifications to the design (the first change after '68 came in '71) so I suppose that a Jefferson 5c specialist could confirm the range of 1968 - 1970 based upon the design details. I have no idea how one could differentiate among those three years. >>
But the P wasn't used for Philadelphia proof coins.
Otherwise, I agree with you.
-Amanda
I'm a YN working on a type set!
My Buffalo Nickel Website Home of the Quirky Buffaloes Collection!
Proud member of the CUFYNA
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
I could be wrong, Amanda, because this area isn't my specialty, but I don't think that Philly minted any proof 5c '68-'70.
<< <i>-- "But the P wasn't used for Philadelphia proof coins." --
I could be wrong, Amanda, because this area isn't my specialty, but I don't think that Philly minted any proof 5c '68-'70. >>
No, they stopped in 64, but if it was 64 or earlier, there would be no MM on the reverse anyways.
-Amanda
I'm a YN working on a type set!
My Buffalo Nickel Website Home of the Quirky Buffaloes Collection!
Proud member of the CUFYNA
Hmmm. So the absence of a mint mark doesn't help, and we're left with nothing but the modifications to the design for the period '68 -'70. I knew I should have just left the question to someone who knows what she's talking about.
<< <i>-- "No, they stopped in 64, but if it was 64 or earlier, there would be no MM on the reverse anyways." --
Hmmm. So the absence of a mint mark doesn't help, and we're left with nothing but the modifications to the design for the period '68 -'70. I knew I should have just left the question to someone who knows what she's talking about.
I looked up how the nickel changed over time, and I could come up with no information to suppourt it being a 68S unless it was submitted in the original packaging.
So I don't entirely know what I'm talking about.
-Amanda
I'm a YN working on a type set!
My Buffalo Nickel Website Home of the Quirky Buffaloes Collection!
Proud member of the CUFYNA
Or the services slabbing FIRST STRIKE designations???
IT'S THE PACKAGING.
K S
I enjoy these types of threads. I'll be interested to find out the answer as well as why the reverse doesn't show a double strike.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
It was made to order.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Could someone explain how the second strike only occured on one side of the coin? The second strike on the obverse was strong and totally flattened the first strike yet the reverse shows little or no change to the first strike. I've never seen this on other double struck coins.
Edited to say:
Okay, you got me on this one. At fist look I thought it was an indented off-center second strike, but that doesn't work in this case.
I would guess that this is a "double struck with offset die misalignment" error. The coin was in the collar for the second strike. It is a proof, so it was struck more than once in the collar, but the obverse die became severely misaligned while the anvil die remained in-line. How the obverse die became so misaligned is amazing to me. Maybe one of the error experts can elaborate. Maybe I am missing something here. I remember working with a couple of similar pieces of early large cents when cataloging the Mid-West collection of error coppers.
How in the world did ANACS know the date of this coin?
It could be either a 68-S or a 70-S. Modified reverse design from 67, changed again in 71.
TD
peacockcoins
<< <i><a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://coins.heritageauctions.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=428&Lot_No=1973" target=blank>Neat error, but sure is a bit pricey.</A> >>
That's neat. Here's what Heritage says: The first strike is normal. The second strike is 45% off center toward 4:30. The second strike buckled the portion of the first strike uneffaced by the second strike.
I don't get it. Do you?
<< <i>Could someone explain how the second strike only occured on one side of the coin? >>
On the second strike the coin was off-center but there was another planchet in the coining chamber. The obverse received the impression of the obverse die but on the reverse the off center coin simply impressed it's design into the other planchet. So there would be another error nickel produced that shows the date, mintmark and the lower portion of the bust and the rest of the coin would be an off-center brockage of the reverse. The reverse of that coin would be normal. (Of course being a proof, we probably are not really talking second strike here because it probably received the second strike before it was removed from the coining chamber. What we are calling the "second strike" is probably the third and maybe third and fourth strikes.)
<< <i>It could be either a 68-S or a 70-S. Modified reverse design from 67, changed again in 71 >>
Why not a 69-S as well?
This coin was probably also "helped" into existance.
On the second strike the coin was off-center but there was another planchet in the coining chamber. The obverse received the impression of the obverse die but on the reverse the off center coin simply impressed it's design into the other planchet. So there would be another error nickel produced that shows the date, mintmark and the lower portion of the bust and the rest of the coin would be an off-center brockage of the reverse. The reverse of that coin would be normal. (Of course being a proof, we probably are not really talking second strike here because it probably received the second strike before it was removed from the coining chamber. What we are calling the "second strike" is probably the third and maybe third and fourth strikes.)
That's essentially what I stated in my post above, but I edited it after thinking about it. That would be an indented double strike error. However, it doesn't quite work. If the coin were struck 50% off-center on the second strike, then the planchet would show deformation. Take a look at the pic in the OP and the coin is perfectly round, suggesting that it remained in the chamber (closed collar) for the second strike. The obverse (hammer) die was misaligned for the second (3rd or 4th) strike, thus creating the error. Also, with an indented double strike error, you would see much more deformation on the reverse, even it is nickel (but more so with copper or silver).
I think Heritage kinda skirted the issue with their description. I would like to hear from one of the error experts on this forum.......
<< <i>we are not certain of its date or mintmark. It is the Reverse of 1970 subtype. >>
I'm certain of the mintmark, why aren't they?
My icon IS my coin. It is a gem 1949 FBL Franklin.
Since when do TPG's put information on the label based on value?
There MUST be a reason (I hope) that ANACS knows the date. Anyway we can find out from ANACS?
Joe.
San Diego, CA
How in the world did ANACS know the date of this coin?
As others have already said in this thread, it was found in a 1968 proof set. 1968-S proof nickels only left the mint one way; in goverment packaging.
a package Proof Set.
<< <i>I seriously doubt it was found in
a package Proof Set. >>
Think it was "manufactured"? Also, do you agree that it is double struck with obverse die misalignment error?
Also, the coin was struck by a misaligned obverse die while it sat on the reverse die. That is why there is no distortion of the reverse design elements, and also why the coin buckled slightly toward the obverse.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
from the State of Calif. Safe Deposit Box deal. (That deal
had the first Two-Tailed Quarter in it, and quite a few of
the 235 pieces, but not all, were Proofs. That deal had
some spectacular BU and Proof San Francisco Mint Errors
in it, but not this piece.
As for this nickel, it's impossible to know if it was made
intentionally and taken out of the Mint, or made as
part of the normal minting process, and then taken out
of the Mint.
I'm not so sure it's a mis-aligned obv. 2nd strike. I believe
that the second strike had a blank in the collar; should it
have left more indication of same on the reverse? Possibly,
but don't forget we're dealing with a high-tonage Proof striking.
As far as how ANACS saw the date, I'd guess that under a glass,
you can make out enough detail to know........
Joe.
I thought that 100% of the proof mintages went into sets in 1968. Is that not correct?
I'm not so sure it's a mis-aligned obv. 2nd strike. I believe
that the second strike had a blank in the collar; should it
have left more indication of same on the reverse? Possibly,
but don't forget we're dealing with a high-tonage Proof striking.
That was my initial thought, but how can we explain why the coin is perfectly round? It MUST have been in the collar for the second strike, which says misaligned obverse dbl strike. As you said, it was a high-tonage press. That would have smashed the planchet out of round on the second strike........unless it were retained by the collar. And it is hard to imagine an ident double strike with very little deformation on the reverse. Seems like it would have smashed the first reverse strike to pieces.
The coin that received indent from it would be the one smashed out of round and look something like this:
<< <i>I'm not so sure it's a mis-aligned obv. 2nd strike. I believe
that the second strike had a blank in the collar; should it
have left more indication of same on the reverse? Possibly,
but don't forget we're dealing with a high-tonage Proof striking.
That was my initial thought, but how can we explain why the coin is perfectly round? It MUST have been in the collar for the second strike, which says misaligned obverse dbl strike. As you said, it was a high-tonage press. That would have smashed the planchet out of round on the second strike........unless it were retained by the collar. And it is hard to imagine an ident double strike with very little deformation on the reverse. Seems like it would have smashed the first reverse strike to pieces. >>
As an error collector, I find the misaligned obverse second strike to be the most likely explanation.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
Such massive misalignments are surpassingly rare, but a few are known in business strikes.
<< <i>the first strike was normal, including the date. the second strike did not entirely efface the existing date, ie it's still visible under close examination. & the crappy digi-pic is not detailed enough to show this.
K S >>
I examined this coin personally at the most recent ANA show. The date was completely obliterated.
<< <i> How the obverse die became so misaligned is amazing to me. Maybe one of the error experts can elaborate. Maybe I am missing something here. I remember working with a couple of similar pieces of early large cents when cataloging the Mid-West collection of error coppers. >>
The misalignment appears too great to be caused by a loose die moving laterally within its recess. I doubt sufficient room exists for this amount of movement and, in any case, any die this loose would almost assuredly fall out. It's more likely that the entire die carriage shifted to one side between the first and second strikes. Whether this occurred spontaneously, or was helped along, I cannot say.
Great input from the error experts. Thanks. The die carriage shift theory makes a lot of sense.
Now, one final question directed to Mr. Byers: since you are close to this coin, do you have any insight as to how ANACS knew the date? Came out of a proof set? That was MrEureka's opening question in this thread and it got sidetracked a bit.