Originally posted by: 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?
PCGS, ANACS, NGC all examined, all refused to authenticate
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.
There were threeS mint marks used in 1941 for the nickel, one small S, and two large S mintmarks with different styles.
Originally posted by: 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.
All transitionals (wrong planchet) errors, occur when the wrong planchet is used, and the planchet was in transition at some time period previous, such as the 1943 Copper cent, it also includes 1974-D, when rejected silver proof planchets were accidentally sent to Denver with rejected CN proof planchets by SF.
This is different as it used an unauthorized design, i.e. the Type 1 reverse.
And yes, the composition has been tested of the coin itself, and is of the wartime alloy (I tested it myself, PCGS, NGC, some college labs)... And I believe the college lab was able to test the mint mark itself, which yielded the same results. (Kevin, you might want to fact check me on that)
Originally posted by: CelinaCoin And yes, the composition has been tested of the coin itself, and is of the wartime alloy (I tested it myself, PCGS, NGC, some college labs)... And I believe the college lab was able to test the mint mark itself, which yielded the same results. (Kevin, you might want to fact check me on that)
If the coin and its mintmark are wartime alloy, it is less likely to be a fake. Why would a counterfeiter go to the trouble to obtain a wartime nickel blank planchet, create fake dies from a 1942 obverse and 1941-S reverse, strike only one single coin from those dies, then release it into circulation? A test strike of the new composition, using an old reverse die, seems like a more plausible explanation to me.
Fantastic story, very informative. Is there any enlarged photos of the date and mintmark available for a novice to peruse? I would love to see them. Thanks to all who posted pertinent information regarding this "Frith" nickel. Should be named the "Unknown" nickel for both its questionable manufacture and the unknown collector who found it in 1961.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
Another unexplored possibility is that it is a real 1942 Philadelphia nickel with nickel composition. A process similar to what was done with some Buffalo nickels - drilled out from edge and a specially made embossing tool that pushed a mintmark out - hole filled and plated over. Not made in San Francisco and not an added mintmark by gluing on.
@davewesen said:
Another unexplored possibility is that it is a real 1942 Philadelphia nickel with nickel composition. A process similar to what was done with some Buffalo nickels - drilled out from edge and a specially made embossing tool that pushed a mintmark out - hole filled and plated over. Not made in San Francisco and not an added mintmark by gluing on.
The coin was discovered long before the embossed mint mark technique was suddenly and widely used on many, many coins. It is presumed that the person who used it flooded the market at one show with his products (all encased in Capital Plastics holders that hid the edges until the cases were opened) because he knew that once people knew about the technique everybody would start checking edges.
It is theoretically possible that somebody figured out the technique in 1961 (or earlier) and then never used it again for almost 20 years, but I doubt it.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Still no final decision on this nickel? Looks as if it will be one of those numismatic mysteries that will never be concluded. If counterfeit, kudos to the counterfeiter.... has fooled the best up to this point. Cheers, RickO
@cameonut2011 said:
"The coin is the only one of its kind known to exist and has been authenticated by various numismatic experts, including Walter Breen..."
Hmm... That alone makes me question the coin just like many of Breen's so called specimen strikings for other series.
Did you read the entire thread to see how many of us have liked the coin?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@cameonut2011 said:
"The coin is the only one of its kind known to exist and has been authenticated by various numismatic experts, including Walter Breen..."
Hmm... That alone makes me question the coin just like many of Breen's so called specimen strikings for other series.
Did you read the entire thread to see how many of us have liked the coin?
No, not when I made that post. Whenever I see Walter Breen cited, I always approach the issue with caution and a healthy dose of mistrust. Having now gone back through and seeing your post, I would trust your judgment for authentication especially on an in hand inspection.
Hey fellas Im Herson. I was reasearching some info on my coin and stumbled into the convo and would like to ask for some addtl help in seeing if I may have found a 2nd example. I was studying the coin and noticed a faint S mint mark next to the building that is being slightly hidden by the crud buildup in that small corner. I found this coin in a roll i got at the gas station by my house. I am organizing my sets and happened to stubble across it. I wanted to see what tests can i do to check its authenticity before I send it for grading. I save all my change for a few years now and have found some pretty interesting errors.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@Hersonayala23 said:
Hey fellas Im Herson. I was reasearching some info on my coin and stumbled into the convo and would like to ask for some addtl help in seeing if I may have found a 2nd example. I was studying the coin and noticed a faint S mint mark next to the building that is being slightly hidden by the crud buildup in that small corner. I found this coin in a roll i got at the gas station by my house. I am organizing my sets and happened to stubble across it. I wanted to see what tests can i do to check its authenticity before I send it for grading. I save all my change for a few years now and have found some pretty interesting errors.
Hard to tell. The pic is showing the obverse. Unless you are saying the mint mark is on the obverse?
Edit to add: Welcome to the PCGS forum and your first post but signed-up awhile ago.
It is nice finding a coin roughly 80 years old in circulation. Yours has been through much with some damage on center of Monticello and the circular loop to the left of E Pluribus. There may be something on your coin to the right of Monticello, but it is not a S mintmark. The suggestion was a reverse from 1941 was used on some 1942 obverses, so the reverse should look something like found on a 1941-S.
@pablitordillo , please just post your photos here in the forum directly.
To post a photo, click on the right most button just above the blue text box.
The line of buttons starts with B I S and ends with a [] button that looks like a photo of a mountain with the sun in the upper left corner.
If you hover your mouse over this button, it will say "Attach image".
Then click on [Choose Files] and select the photo files of your nickel on your PC.
Thank you for posting / sharing the photos of your coin.
Given the amount of wear,
I believe it would be difficult to be sure there is an "s" on the right side of Monticello.
If there is raised metal in that area, it might be from a contact mark.
If your coin was struck with a die which included both the huge "S" above the center of Monticello,
and a smaller "s" on the right side of Monticello,
this is a different die from the Frith coin.
Sir my big S is not on the center but on the upper edge of monticello with the small S down right of monticello.could it be that my coin is a test coin? What do you think sir?
@pablitordillo said:
Thank for the comment sir. But they are clear S to me. God bless. The-
You asked for opinions and you’re getting them. I don’t see any mint-made S mint marks on your coin, either. I believe you’re seeing what you hope/want to see and that if the coin would be valuable without a mintmark, you wouldn’t be seeing one, anymore.
You’re free to see and believe whatever you want to, so enjoy your coin and live your dream.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I can see there is raised metal in about the right location,
but I can also see a deep contact mark above the raised area which could have raised the upper edge.
Maybe also a contact mark to the left to raise that edge.
Comments
Interesting to say the least. Thanks for sharing.
At last, a decent picture of this nickel!
Are they planning to test its metallic composition?
several services have stated they tested and it came back war time composition, no CN.
I am waiting to see the evidence.
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?
PCGS, ANACS, NGC all examined, all refused to authenticate
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.
There were threeS mint marks used in 1941 for the nickel, one small S, and two large S mintmarks with different styles.
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.
All transitionals (wrong planchet) errors, occur when the wrong planchet is used, and the planchet was in transition at some time period previous, such as the 1943 Copper cent, it also includes 1974-D, when rejected silver proof planchets were accidentally sent to Denver with rejected CN proof planchets by SF.
This is different as it used an unauthorized design, i.e. the Type 1 reverse.
Do you know who the PCGS Board of Expert was, would like to speak to them
Thanks
Kevin
PM Sent
And yes, the composition has been tested of the coin itself, and is of the wartime alloy (I tested it myself, PCGS, NGC, some college labs)... And I believe the college lab was able to test the mint mark itself, which yielded the same results. (Kevin, you might want to fact check me on that)
If the coin and its mintmark are wartime alloy, it is less likely to be a fake. Why would a counterfeiter go to the trouble to obtain a wartime nickel blank planchet, create fake dies from a 1942 obverse and 1941-S reverse, strike only one single coin from those dies, then release it into circulation? A test strike of the new composition, using an old reverse die, seems like a more plausible explanation to me.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
Another unexplored possibility is that it is a real 1942 Philadelphia nickel with nickel composition. A process similar to what was done with some Buffalo nickels - drilled out from edge and a specially made embossing tool that pushed a mintmark out - hole filled and plated over. Not made in San Francisco and not an added mintmark by gluing on.
The coin was discovered long before the embossed mint mark technique was suddenly and widely used on many, many coins. It is presumed that the person who used it flooded the market at one show with his products (all encased in Capital Plastics holders that hid the edges until the cases were opened) because he knew that once people knew about the technique everybody would start checking edges.
It is theoretically possible that somebody figured out the technique in 1961 (or earlier) and then never used it again for almost 20 years, but I doubt it.
TD
Still no final decision on this nickel? Looks as if it will be one of those numismatic mysteries that will never be concluded. If counterfeit, kudos to the counterfeiter.... has fooled the best up to this point. Cheers, RickO
"The coin is the only one of its kind known to exist and has been authenticated by various numismatic experts, including Walter Breen..."
Hmm... That alone makes me question the coin just like many of Breen's so called specimen strikings for other series.
Did you read the entire thread to see how many of us have liked the coin?
How many others have slipped through peoples fingers or laying in drawers, jars or gutters? Still a cool piece!
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
No, not when I made that post. Whenever I see Walter Breen cited, I always approach the issue with caution and a healthy dose of mistrust. Having now gone back through and seeing your post, I would trust your judgment for authentication especially on an in hand inspection.
The only US "coin" with a lisp.....
It's either a unique coin potentially worth over $1 million, or it's a worthless counterfeit. I'd call that "controversial."
Hey fellas Im Herson. I was reasearching some info on my coin and stumbled into the convo and would like to ask for some addtl help in seeing if I may have found a 2nd example. I was studying the coin and noticed a faint S mint mark next to the building that is being slightly hidden by the crud buildup in that small corner. I found this coin in a roll i got at the gas station by my house. I am organizing my sets and happened to stubble across it. I wanted to see what tests can i do to check its authenticity before I send it for grading. I save all my change for a few years now and have found some pretty interesting errors.
Why are you showing only the obverse?
Hard to tell. The pic is showing the obverse. Unless you are saying the mint mark is on the obverse?
Edit to add: Welcome to the PCGS forum and your first post but signed-up awhile ago.
Show us the reverse so we can help determine if there is a mintmark and if it is not a D. No need for any tests.
Sorry guys is this cool?
RE: "It has a faint s mm next to the building."
Do you mean the one that is invisible and imaginary?
I was jst kindly asking a question..
Need a closer higher resolution pic. The coin counter swirl is all I can see.
It's a Philadelphia coin.
It is nice finding a coin roughly 80 years old in circulation. Yours has been through much with some damage on center of Monticello and the circular loop to the left of E Pluribus. There may be something on your coin to the right of Monticello, but it is not a S mintmark. The suggestion was a reverse from 1941 was used on some 1942 obverses, so the reverse should look something like found on a 1941-S.
IMO, both these nickels [that actually pertain to the thread] need to go to PCGS. As is, without a slab....
please try to see my frith nickel pic that i send to mr.Mike Dingeldein[BigDowgie].i need your comment guys. thanks.
@pablitordillo , please just post your photos here in the forum directly.
To post a photo, click on the right most button just above the blue text box.
The line of buttons starts with B I S and ends with a [] button that looks like a photo of a mountain with the sun in the upper left corner.
If you hover your mouse over this button, it will say "Attach image".
Then click on [Choose Files] and select the photo files of your nickel on your PC.
I tried to upload here bit can not. Sojust give mr your email sir. Thank you. The
Take note on the two S the large S which is the reverse of 1941 and the big S for silver nickel.
Thank you for posting / sharing the photos of your coin.
Given the amount of wear,
I believe it would be difficult to be sure there is an "s" on the right side of Monticello.
If there is raised metal in that area, it might be from a contact mark.
If your coin was struck with a die which included both the huge "S" above the center of Monticello,
and a smaller "s" on the right side of Monticello,
this is a different die from the Frith coin.
I had one graded in 2004 and it was Type 1 but without the S mint mark. It was MS 64.
Sir it is an S. I will send a more clearer pix.
Sir my big S is not on the center but on the upper edge of monticello with the small S down right of monticello.could it be that my coin is a test coin? What do you think sir?
I may see what you believe is a huge S which touches the upper right corner of Monticello.
My opinion is that both of these apparent mint marks are from contact marks,
and the coin is likely a 1942 Philadelphia "Type 1" with no mint mark.
Thank for the comment sir. But they are clear S to me. God bless. The-
You asked for opinions and you’re getting them. I don’t see any mint-made S mint marks on your coin, either. I believe you’re seeing what you hope/want to see and that if the coin would be valuable without a mintmark, you wouldn’t be seeing one, anymore.
You’re free to see and believe whatever you want to, so enjoy your coin and live your dream.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
90sm
Thank you for the new photos.
I can see there is raised metal in about the right location,
but I can also see a deep contact mark above the raised area which could have raised the upper edge.
Maybe also a contact mark to the left to raise that edge.