Grades in for this newbie.... 1880 Nickel and 1880 dime...

digicat

I posted last month about the small coin collection that my in-laws gave me to sell for them. They had belonged to my wife's grandfather, who no one knew was a collector.

Using a copy of the Red Book, I found the most valuable coins in the lot to be an 1880 Shield Nickel (Which I posted about as well) and an 1880 seated liberty dime.

I sent them in for grading under the "regular" service, and 9 days in I got my grades...


29216931 3835 1880 5C USA PR50
29216932 4688 1880 10C USA AU50


So, the Nickel was judged to be a proof, and the dime got an AU50 grade. I know that the proof of the nickel is worth a fraction of what a business strike is worth, so there's a little disappointment there. Any idea of what sort of price these coins would fetch?

ModCrewman

PCGS Guide on your Dime is $450. And from recent auction results it looks like your nickel is maybe a $750+ coin.

Good luck...bummer you didn't get the business strike determination on the nickel.

EDIT - I take back the $750 value on the nickel...it looks like it's probably much less than that. I hadn't scrolled over in Coin Facts to see the values on MS coins; though there are some auction results for the lower grade ones in the $750 range...they probably aren't as indicative as the values assigned to the mint state coins. Looks like it might not make $2-300 as a PR50.

numisma

I think that you did well on the assigned grades, but I do not think that the 1880 5C is a proof format. It looks like a business strike to me. Something just doesn't seem right. If it were my coin, I would crack it out and send it to NGC for their opinion.

Since it is very tricky to distinguish between a business strike and a proof, the services have a propensity to take the safest route, since there is a financial guarantee in place. (imho)

magikbilly

I thought odd about the 5C too, but the denticles (and placement on Rev anyway), the strength of the detail in the shield, the detail in the center of each and every star..the mirrors don't last long in circulation but I would expect to see a touch of something besides the tiny bit of tone that remotely suggests Pr surfaces once there. I should think out hosts see more than I can. I would expect the thing to look more crisp.

Maybe that oddly shaped dot to the left of "Cents" is a Proof diagnostic? No, it is on BS examples too - but the denticle placement of the Rev. matches a Proof.


Eric

ColonelJessup

<< <i>I think that you did well on the assigned grades, but I do not think that the 1880 5C is a proof format. It looks like a business strike to me. Something just doesn't seem right. If it were my coin, I would crack it out and send it to NGC for their opinion.

Since it is very tricky to distinguish between a business strike and a proof, the services have a propensity to take the safest route, since there is a financial guarantee in place. (imho) >>



Also known as the "Too Tall To Call" syndrome. . .

So did I ever tell you about the time I bought a '13 T1 PR64 in a PCGS MS65 holder? This is an incredibly non-unique experience, though it nowadays occurs much less frequently .

Works both ways . . .

RichieURich

Here is how PCGS classifies 1880 nickels (I have submitted about a dozen of them, so I should know):

Use the second T in STATES on the reverse, and the two stars nearest to it. In the area in-between the T and the two stars, there is sometimes a lump, which is referred to as the "island reverse".

Those 1880 nickels that have the island reverse, PCGS will slab as business strikes. All others PCGS will slab as proofs.

Broadstruck

Might just be my monitor but both coins look like they have active PVC growth?

magikbilly

<< <i>Might just be my monitor but both coins look like they have active PVC growth? >>



I saw the same and dismissed it as my monitor and assumed the host could not miss that.
5C Rev esp.

Eric

digicat

<< <i>Might just be my monitor but both coins look like they have active PVC growth? >>



What would active PVC growth look like in-hand?

magikbilly

Right now we, or I at least, am talking about the suggestion of greenish looking "stuff" in the denticles especially on 5C Rev. - might be crud but the color is suggestive. Perhaps its presence in these pics is akin in a way to the certain pink of a penny that says "most likely cleaned".

Eric

phnatacc

<< <i>What would active PVC growth look like in-hand? >>

Broadstruck

<< <i>

<< <i>Might just be my monitor but both coins look like they have active PVC growth? >>



What would active PVC growth look like in-hand? >>



Green muck around the letters, stars, and rims.

DIMEMAN

According to the "Island Lump" thing.....the nickel is a proof.

Sure does not look proof to me.

howards

<< <i>... but the denticle placement of the Rev. matches a Proof.

Eric >>



Since the same dies were used for business strikes and proofs, you can't tell anything by denticle placement.

howards

<< <i>Here is how PCGS classifies 1880 nickels (I have submitted about a dozen of them, so I should know):

Use the second T in STATES on the reverse, and the two stars nearest to it. In the area in-between the T and the two stars, there is sometimes a lump, which is referred to as the "island reverse".

Those 1880 nickels that have the island reverse, PCGS will slab as business strikes. All others PCGS will slab as proofs. >>



This is not quite right. PCGS will certify all island reverses as business strikes. However, I have seen a number of non-island reverses in business strike holders.

howards

In our earlier discussion about this coin, I rendered my opinion that the coin is a business strike based on typical weaknesses seen associated with business strikes.

However, PCGS will often not slab these as business strikes. (I guess the value difference is so great that they prefer to be very conservative.)

Here is a particularly nice example that I examined person a few years ago:

1880 on Heritage

Note that this coin not only does not have the island reverse, it also has the obverse that precludes the island reverse. It's hard to see in the photo, but the coin has obvious business strike luster, and I bet that's why PCGS put it in a business strike holder.

Walkerguy21D

From what I recall, the 1880 Proof nickels didn't really look like Proofs....not much in the way of mirrors or device contrast.
291Fifth, RichieURich, and HowardS (especially) know Shield nickels.
Rich already contributed, let's hope the other fellows chime in too.

howards

When Dave Bowers was writing his fairly recent Shield and Liberty Nickel book, Dave, Doug Kurz, John Dannreuther, and I had a roundtable discussion about proof vs. business strike 1880s (see page 119). Pick up a copy and read about it if you like.

magikbilly

<< <i>

<< <i>... but the denticle placement of the Rev. matches a Proof.

Eric >>



Since the same dies were used for business strikes and proofs, you can't tell anything by denticle placement. >>




When I saw the same oddly shaped "dot" to the left of "Cents" on both BS and Pr I figured that, but then failed to carry my reasoning over. I did see a BS 1880 with different Rev. denticle placement though.

Eric

numisma

<< <i>When Dave Bowers was writing his fairly recent Shield and Liberty Nickel book, Dave, Doug Kurz, John Dannreuther, and I had a roundtable discussion about proof vs. business strike 1880s (see page 119). Pick up a copy and read about it if you like. >>



That is a very cool tidbit of information. I do not have this book, but now I want it!

howards

<< <i>

When I saw the same oddly shaped "dot" to the left of "Cents" on both BS and Pr I figured that, but then failed to carry my reasoning over. I did see a BS 1880 with different Rev. denticle placement though.

Eric >>



There were at least two different reverse dies used, accounting for the different denticle placement you saw. Both dies were used on both proof and business strikes.