Opinions please on this Racketeer nickel

CoinHusker

I've been going back and forth with the seller for 2 weeks on this piece. He refuses to believe it possibly could not be "genuine". Your opinions please.










Am I wrong to think that this isn't an authentic racketeer nickel because of the wear under the plating? Look at the "Liberty" on the Bust of the coin. The reverse looks like it is a grease filled die strike at the E Pluribus Unum but the wear on the obverse with the plating over it leads me to believe it is not an authentic Racketeer nickel. The wear of the plating doesn't bother me, it's the wear under the plating I'm wondering about. So, Am I right? Wrong? Don't care?

So, what say you?

crypto79

As to being a 1883 something trinket, who knows. It can't be more than a few bucks so I think it is close enough to tell the story of it to your friends and family who don't know about coins.

dsessom

Most Racketeer nickels aren't worn much if at all. There are TONS of nice examples of them out there for cheap.

dbldie55

What is the definition of an "Authentic" one? I would highly doubt this one was plated in 1883 if that is what you mean. As you say. It is pretty worn to have been plated that quickly. I would venture to say it circulated for years before it was plated.

I do like the reeding. Looks like a nice job.

CoinHusker

<< <i>What is the definition of an "Authentic" one? >>




That seems to be the question, doesn't it. The seller said he asked friends/dealers at FUN and they all said this coin would quality as "authentic" simply because it has been plated and has a reeded edge. I would think "authentic", "genuine", "real", etc. means plated and reeded in 1883 soon after minting.

RWB

Contemporary newspaper articles suggest most were not reeded. Some jewelers plated the nickels in quantity to use as imitation gold pieces in bracelets and other cheap jewelry. Evidently, these were not reeded either. Contemporary nickels that were plated would have been uncirculated or nearly so – not worn.

The Mint Director’s original excuse was that the three cent CuNi coin only had a “III” for denomination and was never confused with the $3 gold coin. But within a week, plans had begun to replace the reverse on the new nickel and add the word “cents.”

braddick

Based on my experience, that is an authentic one, contemporary to the times.

I'd place a value on it north of $50.00, approaching $100. on a good day.

RyGuy

Looks authentic to me, has all the signs, reeded edge, etc.

It would be awesome if this one is that worn because it actually did circulate as a $5 gold piece.

Ryan

YaHa

cool

YaHa

ttt

coolest

I thought the racketeer nickle was a authentic 1883 Nickel that was plated with gold. This coin is obviously counterfeit since it is reeded. Am I missing something?

jmj3esq

I wont even get into the converation i overheard between some randon woman and a local dealer about these racketeer nickels last weekend. Something like being worth over $1,000,000.

I dont know how you dealers do it. Letting these people down softly has to be tough.

RyGuy

<< <i>I thought the racketeer nickle was a authentic 1883 Nickel that was plated with gold. This coin is obviously counterfeit since it is reeded. Am I missing something? >>



I hope you're joking...

thebeav

<< <i>Based on my experience, that is an authentic one, contemporary to the times.

I'd place a value on it north of $50.00, approaching $100. on a good day. >>



I agree. The reeded edge examples are preferable to the more common, non reeded types.

CaptHenway

<< <i>What is the definition of an "Authentic" one? I would highly doubt this one was plated in 1883 if that is what you mean. As you say. It is pretty worn to have been plated that quickly. I would venture to say it circulated for years before it was plated.

I do like the reeding. Looks like a nice job. >>





TD

astrorat

If I remember the "legend" of Josh* Tatum and the racketeer nickel correctly, the "original" nickels were not actually plated, but "covered" with gold dust and passed to merchants. The coins were not reeded. Others followed who actually plated the pieces with gold with or without reeding (I have an example that is reeded without plating). The pieces were not well worn, since it would take a nickel 10-20 years in circulation to wear down to a VG or so. After that length of time in circulation, even heavy plating would be fairly worn away. The vast majority of pieces I have seen are post-contemporary pieces. Rarely has an example surfaced that could be considered a contemporary "original" racketeer nickel. Besides...there is no absolute way to authenticate that it was an "original" of 1883.

Lane

*Note: Despite the legend, the reference to "joshing" someone did not originate from the Racketeer nickel. The verb to "josh" was a colloquial term used as early as the 1850s.

Steve27

I can't say whether it was produced circa 1883, but the verdigris in the "reeds" indicates it was produced quite a while ago.

CoinHusker

Very interesting, this seems to be breaking down around 50/50.

CoinHusker

for the saturday morning crowd.

CoinHusker

I wrote to QDB about it and here's his reply:

"Thank you for your letter. Most of the copy “racketeer” nickels I have seen have not had reeded edges. One with a reeded edge and with traces of plating, and which appears to be old, probably would be an original.

All good wishes to you.

Sincerely,

—Dave Bowers"


So, now I'm torn. Do I listen to RWB or QDB? But seriously, one thing I've found out about these, there certainly isn't a "standard" for them.

RWB

Dave Bowers’ point is that it has to “look its age.” My opinion is in agreement. However, I also posit that the time when these were originally gold plated was so close to issuance of the coin, that no example could have acquired significant wear.