Options
1879-1881 Shield Nickel business strikes
Prethen
Posts: 3,447 ✭✭✭
What are the diagnostic factors that are able to (easily?) distinguish these coins from their Proof brethren? If you were to ask this about various 3CN, in some cases it's extremely difficult (if not near impossible) unless there's little or no wear (in my opinion which is also based on some specialist literature by Alan Gifford). In other 3CN cases, you have to know things like date position, rotational characteristics, etc.
Are the specifics for these three years? If so, where are they documented?
Finally,how difficult are these to find in problem-free XF/AU condition?
Are the specifics for these three years? If so, where are they documented?
Finally,how difficult are these to find in problem-free XF/AU condition?
0
Comments
My own experience on the true 1880 business strikes is that they are nearly impossible to find in any grade, circ or unc. Comparatively speaking the 1879 and 1881 are much easier to find. Finding these 2 dates in decent XF/AU condition should be roughly equivalent to the dimes, quarters and halves of the same year. They are out there. The 1880 nickel is in a class all by itself and imo is far tougher than any of other 1879-1890 low mintage business strike silver coins in any denomination.
roadrunner
There have been some previous extended discussions on this subject, perhaps ATS. Try a search.
For '79, and '81, proofs can usually be differentiated from business strikes by examining the edge. If the edge is wide, flat, and prooflike, with beveled corners it's a proof (easier to show in person than describe in words).
The real problem is in 1880, where the edge diagnostic doesn't work since it's thought that the proof collar was left in the press when business strikes were made. There is one set of die markers (called the "island reverse") which is thought though not 100% proven to be a marker for business strikes. The TPGs seem to accept it as a business strike marker. Coins without the island reverse are not necessarily proofs as known business strikes exist, but the only way to determine them is by a totality of evidence approach, examining all facets of the coin. In this latter case, more often than not, the TPGs will call it a proof, especially if they have a guarantee that could cost them a lot of money for attributing a proof as a business strike.
In all three years, business strikes were struck from the same dies as proofs, which accounts for the lack of die markers.
http://www.shieldnickels.net
It turns out that their is no diagnostics for Proof or Business strikes, and they may have used Proof dies for all the coins. So to me if an AU coin shows no sign of mirroring in the protected areas then it must be a bussiness strike, but PCGS does not agree.
And this certainly would not help for coins that have seen more circulation.
My conclusion regarding those dates is that you really can't make any firm conclusions.
Don't pay premiums for what are claimed to be business strikes.
This is just my own opinion based on my experience in putting together a mint state date set back in the 1990's.
<< <i>My conclusion regarding those dates is that you really can't make any firm conclusions.
Don't pay premiums for what are claimed to be business strikes.
>>
In certain limited circumstance (e.g., island reverse coins) you can make firm conclusions and there are recognized die markers. I have also seen non-island reverse coins in high grade MS that were definitely business strike as they showed typical business strike luster.
However, if you are not expert at this game I agree that it is a fool who pays big money for purported business strikes. I would think the difference in the ANACS opinion and PCGS opinion cited above could well be due to the fact that the coin is likely a business strike but that PCGS was not willing to put their guarantee on the line about it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think ANACS has a guarantee that puts them in any financial jeopardy for getting this one wrong.
http://www.shieldnickels.net
<< <i>
My own experience on the true 1880 business strikes is that they are nearly impossible to find in any grade
roadrunner >>
Now that all depends. Are all of the 1880s that defy categorization really business strikes or proofs? If they are in fact business strikes, then business strikes are not hard to find. Unfortunately the only guy who knows for sure died a very long time ago, sometime after he ran the coin press.
A better way to phrase the above statement, IMO, is "True verifiable 1880 business strikes are nearly impossible to find in any grade.
http://www.shieldnickels.net
I have a third non-island reverse 1880 that I bought a long time ago from Larry Briggs, who has done a lot of work on shield nickels. Both of us were convinced it was a business strike. I had it raw for a few years, then I tried it at PCGS and they gave it a PR58. I sent it back to Larry and he put it in a SEGS business strike holder. I have not tried to re-cross it to PCGS.
http://www.shieldnickels.net
<< <i>By the way, my collection includes two "island reverse" 1880s - one is raw, and one resides in an NGC holder, correctly identified as a business strike.
I have a third non-island reverse 1880 that I bought a long time ago from Larry Briggs, who has done a lot of work on shield nickels. Both of us were convinced it was a business strike. I had it raw for a few years, then I tried it at PCGS and they gave it a PR58. I sent it back to Larry and he put it in a SEGS business strike holder. I have not tried to re-cross it to PCGS. >>
Would you mind showing detailed photos of this "island reverse" and maybe a coin without? Thanks for all the info!
The real problem is in 1880, where the edge diagnostic doesn't work since it's thought that the proof collar was left in the press when business strikes were made.
I have seen this statement before but do not know the source. The problem is that proof coins were struck
on a medal (screw) press and regular-issue coinage on a steam press. It is possible, however, that a short
run of only 16,000 pieces could have been struck for expediency on the medal press if the steam presses
were too busy with the ongoing silver dollar coinage.
Mint records indicate that 3 obverse and 5 reverse circulation dies for the 1880 nickels were destroyed on
January 3, 1881. There was also one pair of proof dies. It is not clear from the available records if all the
circulation dies were used, however.
Denga
<< <i>Would you mind showing detailed photos of this "island reverse" and maybe a coin without? Thanks for all the info! >>
Here are some photos. First, this is a picture of a portion of the reverse of an 1880 with the island. The island is a small lump of raised metal indicated by the white arrow. It is simply absent on 1880s without the island. There are a couple other features, but the island is easy to see and others are not.
Another important datapoint is that the 1880 shield nickel (in both proof and business strike) is only known with two obverse dies. The dies are easily distinguishable by looking at the date. Here is the obverse die that shows a repunched date. This is the only obverse that is known in conjunction with the island reverse.
The other obverse has notable differences: no RPD, date is frozen to the ball by extra metal, there is a spike on the right top of the ball above the date. This obverse has never been seen with the island reverse (if you come across one, that would be really big news).
I hope these pictures answer your questions about the island reverse.
http://www.shieldnickels.net
Great photos.
let me also try to post the coin I have.
I tried to crop them the same as you did for best comparison
very interesting
the photo is too small but it looks to be the same repunch as shown earlier on a business strike.
Your coin is not the island reverse. One can tell immediately because it is paired with the obverse that does not come with the island reverse (spiked ball obverse).
As best as I can tell from a photo, your coin does look like a business strike. Getting a look at the edge would be helpful. It looks like from the photos that your coin has the rounded edge of a business strike. Shield weakness and weakness in veins of the leaves also point to a business strike in my opinion. However, I must add that it's difficult to form a definitive opinion with the coin in hand, and I wouldn't rely on an opinion based solely on a photo.
http://www.shieldnickels.net
<< <i>let me add a photo of a n obvious Proof coin. This coin was graded PF65CAM by PCGS.
the photo is too small but it looks to be the same repunch as shown earlier on a business strike. >>
You are correct - this is the same RPD as shown on the business strike. The same dies were used to strike both proofs and business strikes.
http://www.shieldnickels.net
<< <i>
<< <i>let me add a photo of a n obvious Proof coin. This coin was graded PF65CAM by PCGS.
the photo is too small but it looks to be the same repunch as shown earlier on a business strike. >>
You are correct - this is the same RPD as shown on the business strike. The same dies were used to strike both proofs and business strikes. >>
Another feature that makes it very hard to distinguish between coin types
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180491490901&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT
This is an old thread, and I apologize, but I stepped away from coins for a few years (by necessity).
Has there been any sort of new reference written regarding attribution of the circulation strike nickels of 1879 - 1881?
On the web: http://www.earlyus.com
@OldeTowneCoinShoppe .... Welcome back.... Sorry I cannot help with your question. Hope all is well and you stay with us....Cheers, RickO
I checked on @howards' site, but I didn't find an article or the photos on the 1880 island reverse.
http://shieldnickels.net/