1942-S "Frith" Nickel, Reverse of 1941.

thecoinlook

Read about it here.

BustHalfBrian

I wonder what they paid...

Or better yet, what they want for it.

DCW

That's neat. I don't recall ever reading about this one

segoja

Had this coin in my hands in the last year!

I know the previous owner, but was not aware it had changed hands!

golden

I had been wondering where it had been all of these years.

BLUEJAYWAY

You learn something here every day. I never was aware of this piece. Thanks for the info.

Overdate

At last, a decent picture of this nickel!

Are they planning to test its metallic composition?

yosclimber

Cool coin.
It's one of those coins that doesn't make it into the Red Book (I could be wrong about that - maybe it's in the 1974 Red Book?), but is in Breen's Encyclopedia.

The writeup on the SilverTowne site could be improved if they said "1941 Small S" instead of "1941 Large S".
The Large S in my mind refers to the wartime design with large S above Monticello,
while Small S is the non-wartime design with S right of Monticello.

Related page with more details, poor photo but photo of authentication document:
http://www.coin-collecting-guide-for-beginners.com/rare-nickel.html

Besides this cool copper-nickel muling, there are several off-metal errors known:
1942P copper-nickel
1943P copper-nickel
1944P copper-nickel
1946 silver

The first 3 are extremely rare (approx. 8 known each),
and the 1946 has 4 authenticated.
These estimated known quantities may be outdated.

There is also a:
1941 pure nickel (magnetic), 1 known

BLUEJAYWAY

At a quick glance the "Frith" word almost seems like "Fifth",5 cents. A most appropo designation.

Zoins

Very cool unique coin:

leothelyon

The coin is the only one of its kind known to exist and has been authenticated by various numismatic experts, including Walter Breen and Don Taxay.

So...........why hasn't PCGS, ANACS or NGC certified this coin? Are there experts out there with other opinions on its authenticity? Who's guaranteeing this coin as genuine and how much? What are the record prices paid for an uncertified raw coin? How well do modern rarities fair in the coin market vs classic rarities. The questions keep coming..........what say you?

dbldie55

<< <i>Cool coin.
It's one of those coins that doesn't make it into the Red Book (I could be wrong about that - maybe it's in the 1974 Red Book?), but is in Breen's Encyclopedia.

The writeup on the SilverTowne site could be improved if they said "1941 Small S" instead of "1941 Large S".
The Large S in my mind refers to the wartime design with large S above Monticello,
while Small S is the non-wartime design with S right of Monticello.
.
.
.

>>



The write-up is correct. There are two S types used in 1941. The regular S and the Large S (FS-501 variety). This uses the reverse of the latter.

Overdate

Is this coin a legitimate component of the Jefferson nickel set? If it's a product of the San Francisco Mint and released into circulation through normal channels, I think it is as legitimate as the 1894-S dime, and more legitimate than the 1913 Liberty Head nickels.

messydesk

Would this then be categorized as a transitional wrong composition mule?

Cool piece! I wouldn't say it's more or less a part of the Jefferson set than the copper 1943 cents are part of the Lincoln set.

ms70

An absolutely fascinating coin and story. It's also amazing it was noticed by someone.

NumisOxide

Wow thats cool!

OldEastside

I have a thing for 1942 Nickels or Silver Nickels, whats a ballpark figure on this ?

Steve

indeetlib

Something about this coin looks "off" to me. If it was some sort of early trial or special strike, I would think the dies, even in this grade, would look a lot crisper and better struck. The obverse looks like a pretty worn out die and the reverse strike looks awful. Also, the wear pattern looks strange almost like it was artificially worn to simulate wear and maybe hide other diagnostics. I don't know. Just going by these photos of course and I hadn't heard of this or thought about it up until now. Just some initial impressions.

Also, from the article: "...and has been authenticated by various numismatic experts, including Walter Breen and Don Taxay."

That doesn't carry a lot of weight for me

But if it is real (i.e. a contemporary U.S. mint product), obviously a super cool coin!

lostincoins

Have to look at all the 42 nickels more closely from now on.

illini420

Pretty neat coin. Never heard about this one before. Going to have to check those 1942 nickels at the coin shops and coin shows a little closer now

luckybucks

CaptHenway

<< <i>Something about this coin looks "off" to me. If it was some sort of early trial or special strike, I would think the dies, even in this grade, would look a lot crisper and better struck. The obverse looks like a pretty worn out die and the reverse strike looks awful. Also, the wear pattern looks strange almost like it was artificially worn to simulate wear and maybe hide other diagnostics. I don't know. Just going by these photos of course and I hadn't heard of this or thought about it up until now. Just some initial impressions.

Also, from the article: "...and has been authenticated by various numismatic experts, including Walter Breen and Don Taxay."

That doesn't carry a lot of weight for me

But if it is real (i.e. a contemporary U.S. mint product), obviously a super cool coin! >>



You cannot tell anything about the dies from a coin in this condition.

I saw the coin when a friend owned it, though not in my capacity as an authenticator. I like it for genuine.

TD

yosclimber

<< <i>The write-up is correct. There are two S types used in 1941. The regular S and the Large S (FS-501 variety). This uses the reverse of the latter. >>


Thanks.
I suspected something like this might be the case.

Mark

As experts, Breen and Taxay were state of the art ... in the 1970s. I would be much more impressed and convinced the coin is genuine if it was inspected by today's experts, who I believe dominate Breen and Taxay. For me, CaptHenway's comment carries more weight than the statement that Breen and Taxay once inspected the coin.

Overdate

<< <i>Would this then be categorized as a transitional wrong composition mule?

Cool piece! I wouldn't say it's more or less a part of the Jefferson set than the copper 1943 cents are part of the Lincoln set. >>


It depends. The copper 1943 cents were struck in the wrong metal for the year. By contrast, 1942 nickels were struck both in copper-nickel and (beginning Oct. 8) in "wartime silver".

If this coin is copper-nickel, it could be an early strike of an intended larger production run that never materialized. If its composition is "wartime silver," its status as an error might depend upon whether the larger mint mark over the dome was mandated by Congress or was a U.S. Mint decision. Assuming the coin is genuine, all we know for sure is that it was identified in a proper manner as having been struck at San Francisco in one of the two metallic compositions authorized for that year, and released to circulation.

Zoins

<< <i>So...........why hasn't PCGS, ANACS or NGC certified this coin? >>



I think this coin deserves a PCGS slab and TrueView

CaptHenway

<< <i>

<< <i>Would this then be categorized as a transitional wrong composition mule?

Cool piece! I wouldn't say it's more or less a part of the Jefferson set than the copper 1943 cents are part of the Lincoln set. >>


It depends. The copper 1943 cents were struck in the wrong metal for the year. By contrast, 1942 nickels were struck both in copper-nickel and (beginning Oct. 8) in "wartime silver".

If this coin is copper-nickel, it could be an early strike of an intended larger production run that never materialized. If its composition is "wartime silver," its status as an error might depend upon whether the larger mint mark over the dome was mandated by Congress or was a U.S. Mint decision. Assuming the coin is genuine, all we know for sure is that it was identified in a proper manner as having been struck at San Francisco in one of the two metallic compositions authorized for that year, and released to circulation. >>



The enormous significance of the Frith coin is that it is unique as a die combination, 1942 obverse, S mint mark to the right of Monticello reverse.

There were millions struck of each of the 1943, 1943-D and 1943-S obverse, wheat back reverse die combinations. A happy few were struck on the wrong planchets, but none of the die combinations themselves are rare. The die combination on the Frith coin is unique.

TD

CaptHenway

Spoke with somebody involved with the coin. An attempt is being made to identify the reverse die as it was paired with a 1941 obverse. If that can be done, that would be a good step towards authenticating the piece since it was most likely struck from a leftover 1941-S reverse.

Overdate

Speaking of continuity, does this 1942-S reverse die match any known 1946-S Jeffersons? If so, this would indicate that the reverse die that struck this unique coin was not retired during the war nickel years.

spoilr

Interesting observation re: the 46s dies.
Would be nice to see enlargements of the two side by side to check for any die markers
and mint mark similarities.
Skip

CaptHenway

<< <i>Speaking of continuity, does this 1942-S reverse die match any known 1946-S Jeffersons? If so, this would indicate that the reverse die that struck this unique coin was not retired during the war nickel years. >>



That is a possibility. They did hang on to usable undated dies for years.

seanq

<< <i>

<< <i>Speaking of continuity, does this 1942-S reverse die match any known 1946-S Jeffersons? If so, this would indicate that the reverse die that struck this unique coin was not retired during the war nickel years. >>



That is a possibility. They did hang on to usable undated dies for years. >>



I've never heard of a 1946 S nickel with the large S style from 1941, so in the case if this coin there is little point looking forward for a match.


Sean Reynolds

CaptHenway

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>Speaking of continuity, does this 1942-S reverse die match any known 1946-S Jeffersons? If so, this would indicate that the reverse die that struck this unique coin was not retired during the war nickel years. >>



That is a possibility. They did hang on to usable undated dies for years. >>



I've never heard of a 1946 S nickel with the large S style from 1941, so in the case if this coin there is little point looking forward for a match.


Sean Reynolds >>



Ah, had not thought of that. You are of course correct.

LanceNewmanOCC

.
i thought there was another thread(s) about this for me to comment in but searching "frith" only turned up this thread; even in advanced title/body.
hrmph

in any event. i just wanted to thank jordan for permitting me to look it over, in-hand. quite an unexpected treat.

i'd like to image it too so we can properly bask in all its glory or infamy, depending on your perspective. that is, if there aren't pro images out there already.
.

dcarr

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>Speaking of continuity, does this 1942-S reverse die match any known 1946-S Jeffersons? If so, this would indicate that the reverse die that struck this unique coin was not retired during the war nickel years. >>



That is a possibility. They did hang on to usable undated dies for years. >>



I've never heard of a 1946 S nickel with the large S style from 1941, so in the case if this coin there is little point looking forward for a match.


Sean Reynolds >>



I thought all San Francisco Jefferson nickels from 1946-1954 had the same (large) mint mark.

oih82w8

It's always something. I, like so many who have posted previously, had no knowledge of this Jefferson Nickel. Way cool!

ricko

Something new to look for..... off to my nickel trove with high expectations.... Cheers, RickO

garrynot

<< <i>As experts, Breen and Taxay were state of the art ... in the 1970s. I would be much more impressed and convinced the coin is genuine if it was inspected by today's experts, who I believe dominate Breen and Taxay. For me, CaptHenway's comment carries more weight than the statement that Breen and Taxay once inspected the coin. >>



Agree. Has the coin been tested for composition?

razzle

Like Ricko and others, I never heard of it either-gotta go sort 'em again...

kevinj

There is one low grade specimen of a 1942-S Jefferson nickel that is claimed to have been struck on a copper-nickel planchet with the S mint mark on the side of Monticello. This was claimed to have been found in 1961 and brought to Ken Frith and authenticated by Walter Breen and Don Taxey. It is more likely a counterfeit as the San Francisco Mint did not strike Jefferson nickels on copper-nickel planchets in 1942 and therefore would not have used the reverse with the 'S' mint mark on the side of Monticello in 1942. It is towards the impossible to consider that in December of 1941 the San Francisco Mint installed a 1942 obverse with a 1941 reverse with the S on the side of Monticello and struck one Jefferson nickel on a copper-nickel planchet and dumped it into circulation. The San Francisco Mint did not strike nickels between January and September of 1942 and would not have installed an 1942 obverse into the coining press during this period.

Why also in October of 1942 would the San Francisco Mint have installed the old reverse working die with the S on the side of Montecello and then struck one Jefferson nickel on a copper-nickel planchet? Silver planchets were used during this period. They then dumped this coin into circulaton? It is more likely that someone took a 1941-S Jefferson nickel on a copper-nickel planchet, removed the 1 and replaced it with a 2 in the date or was somehow able to mold the 2 into a 1. The 2 in the date needs to be studied more closely. More likely after someone saw the demand for the 1943 copper and 1944 steel cents, they wanted to create a unique variety for profit. CP wrongly claimed this 1942-S Jefferson nickel was struck on a silver planchet instead of a copper-nickel planchet.

On every other transitional error, the correct dies were in place, but wrong planchet was used.
1943 copper cent, PDS, left over planchets from 1942, the 1943-D was struck intentionally
1944 steel cent, left over steel planchets from 1943
1943 and 1944 copper-nickel Jeffs, left over copper-nickel planchets from 1942
1965 silver dime and quarter - they were striking 1964 silver dimes up through 1966
1974-D silver Ikes, rejected silver proof planchets were sent to Denver with copper-nickel rejected proof planchets
1976-D silver ikes, rejected 1976 silver proof planchets were sent to Denver with copper-nickel rejected proof planchets
there are other transitionals (wrong metal) that are explainable in the same manner.

Herein we have a 1942-S (Type 1 reverse), which was never struck at the SF Mint in 1942, and no nickels were struck at the SF Mint between Jan and September of 1942. Its not just about a left over planchet, its more about that the Type 1 reverse was not used in 1942.

Need to look into
1. When were the 1941 obverse and reverse dies destroyed or sent from SF returned to Philadelphia.
2. When were the obverse and reverse dies delivered to SF, both old and new reverse
3. The SF Mint should have been closed for week or two at the end of 41 or beginning of 42, need to check.

This is nothing like any of the other transitionals which makes it unexplainable and extremely doubtful.
I have not examined the coin, from the photos, the 2 in the date looks slightly large

As anyone else examined the coin and drew a conclusion?
I believe ANACS has certified this coin, not sure if PCGS or NGC would or if they have examined.

IMO, this coin is on the same level as the 1959-D Lincoln cent wheat back reverse. It could not be proven to be counterfeit, but everyone knows it is. When I interviewed Frank Gasparro, and asked him about this, he yelled at me for several minutes, stating that he had been asked about this about 10,000 times, that he had flew to Denver, checked every coining press, checked that all old reverses were accounted for and destroyed.... The 1959-D was called genuine by the U.S. Mint, also remember JP Martin had studied it and could not prove it to be counterfeit.

Kevin

gonzer

Thank you for the addendum to the original post Kevin. Great information.

LanceNewmanOCC

Originally posted by: garrynot

As experts, Breen and Taxay were state of the art ... in the 1970s. I would be much more impressed and convinced the coin is genuine if it was inspected by today's experts, who I believe dominate Breen and Taxay. For me, CaptHenway's comment carries more weight than the statement that Breen and Taxay once inspected the coin.

Agree. Has the coin been tested for composition?

from my conversations, this coin has quite a provenance of owners/researchers and everything has been done to it but putting it on the shuttle to the moon and the final word i heard was it was determined to have a "seam" around the mm.



i do not confirm/deny this. i will speak as a professional on some things; this being on the list of things i don't/can't.



i enjoyed viewing it.



i have, on loan, a 03-s $1 with an added mm (definite) and possibly a couple 89cc $1 with added mm and a peculiar 93-s $1.



slowly building my experience with this stuff.

When I interviewed Frank Gasparro, and asked him about this, he yelled at me for several minutes, stating that he had been asked about this about 10,000 times, that he had flew to Denver, checked every coining press,

this is funny. i hope you can laugh about it now.



several negative things can be seen as humorous later on.

.

kevinj

When I interviewed Frank Gasparro, and asked him about this, he yelled at me for several minutes, stating that he had been asked about this about 10,000 times, that he had flew to Denver, checked every coining press,

this is funny. i hope you can laugh about it now.
several negative things can be seen as humorous later on.
.

yeah your right, maybe now I can laugh about it, and even tell a story of it
then I felt like crap, I pissed off one of the greatest engravers of our time.

Its on the same level when I played chicken with Joe Frazer down at his gym back in the early 80s, hurt like hell then, but after the pain when away, cool story to tell.

Kevin

Overdate

Couldn't it have been an early test strike? I doubt that SF Mint personnel knew in early 1942 that they wouldn't be striking any nickels that year in the original composition.

CelinaCoin

After viewing the super close-ups of the mint mark, it was the opinion of one on the PCGS Board of Experts to be an added mint mark (and the original mint mark removed).



The researcher who took the photographs believed the metal to be "flowing" in to the mint mark, with his opinion that it was mint made.



When I last viewed the coin, and after talking to the PCGS expert, one of the parties involved with this coin was going to have the same close ups of a 41-S "Large S" taken, to see how it compared to the "Frith"



I've not heard anything else since.

CelinaCoin

Also, PCGS, NGC have both deemed it unverifiable.



I also saw some paperwork from Capt stating something similar from many years ago.

kevinj

There were two Large S mint mark styles used on the 1941-S Jefferson nickels, one of which matches exactly to the style of the 1942-S with the S on the side of Monticello.

I was able to obtain large photos of the obverse and reverse of this coin, the 1942 date matches very closely to the date on the 1942-S nickel.

Kevin

PRIZ430

This could have happened, similar to the case of the 1964-D Type "c" quarters using a reverse from the following year....remember...anything is possible.

kevinj

Originally posted by: PRIZ430
This could have happened, similar to the case of the 1964-D Type "c" quarters using a reverse from the following year....remember...anything is possible.

The Mint was striking 1964 dated dimes and quarters up through 1966

kevinj

Originally posted by: CelinaCoin
After viewing the super close-ups of the mint mark, it was the opinion of one on the PCGS Board of Experts to be an added mint mark (and the original mint mark removed).
The researcher who took the photographs believed the metal to be "flowing" in to the mint mark, with his opinion that it was mint made.
When I last viewed the coin, and after talking to the PCGS expert, one of the parties involved with this coin was going to have the same close ups of a 41-S "Large S" taken, to see how it compared to the "Frith"
I've not heard anything else since.

Do you know who the PCGS Board of Expert was, would like to speak to them
Thanks
Kevin

silverpop

till the questions about the coin are dealt with, this coin will be in a grey area