Is this a legitimate Shield Nickel split planchet error... or was this faked?

tincup

I first thought this was a fully split lamination error... resulting in less than half of the original coin. The reverse side is strongly struck; the other side is a mushy indented representation of the reverse; you can see the mirror image of the numeral 5. It is very very thin at 1.91 grams (the new nickel shown for comparison is 5.01 grams). The diameter is slightly smaller than the new nickel, which makes me wonder if it was acid treated? Or perhaps it just wore down a little, since it does look like it circulated some in this condition. Any thought of if it's fake, and if so, how it was done? Thanks---

tincup

Or maybe this was part of a magicians' coin?

Type2

Looks good to me. But I would send it in to confirm it.

CaptHenway

It certainly looks like a genuine split nickel. As to the diameter, Shield nickels are 20.5 mm. All later nickels are 21.21 mm.

tincup

Thanks Captn'... I never realized the nickels were different diameters. That would sure explain it.

WoodenJefferson

Perhaps somewhere in the main stream collection arena, resides the shield side and that person is asking the same question?

Kkathyl

It looks real perhaps it was part of Jewlery or something else. Later came lose. Perhaps someone needed the 5 cents

davewesen

maybe it was a contemporary cut job - sawed in half and used twice

amwldcoin

Personally I find the look questionable. At the least it looks like it has been buffed.

ChrisH821

I think it's legit. The divots where the devices are plus the striations caused by the impurity that caused the split lead me to think such.

mannie gray

@ChrisH821 said:
I think it's legit. The divots where the devices are plus the striations caused by the impurity that caused the split lead me to think such.

Well stated...I agree.

ricko

I have questions.... If a split planchet, why would the stars appear indented?? Knowing a bit about metal stamping, this makes no sense....I question the authenticity of this item...Cheers, RickO

BStrauss3

If you were to stamp two thin pieces of metal with a barrier between them, wouldn't the metal flow into the stars such that when the layers are split, you have the depression remaining at the surface?

Certainly, the two split before strike 3cs I own exhibit the same effect. One was sold to me in an NGC slab by Jon Sullivan, the other I just picked up from eBay and haven't sent in.

CaptHenway

During a typical coin strike the metal in the planchet moves outwards into the design indentations in either die. The metal near the center of the planchet moves very little. The metal near the surface of the planchet that happens to be near a die moves a lot, up into the hammer die or down into the anvil die.

As that metal fills into the design elements, metal from the areas around the design elements moves sideways to replace it. Metal is also moved by the pressures imparted through the planchet by the opposing dies.

Got a cake pan with an embossed design in it? (My first wife had one with a cat design.) Think of the cake pan as a die. Make ten thin layers of croissant dough on a flat surface. Then add a sheet of waxed paper. Now add 20 thin layers of croissant dough atop the waxed paper. The entire mass of dough represents your planchet, with the waxed paper representing an internal flaw that has not yet separated.

Press the 31 layers of dough and waxed paper into your embossed cake pan. Press it in firmly. The bottom layers of dough will conform to the design in the pan, while the top layers will show the pressure marks from your hands. Think of your hands as the opposing die.

Now lift out the waxed paper, leaving just the bottom ten layers of dough in the pan. They will show a recognizable embossed image of the design in the cake pan. Not perfect, because of the sideways movement at the dough deformed into the pan, but there. That is how the incused stars and other elements were created on the underside of your split coin.

TD

BStrauss3

Here's one - the nice thing is that you can see the date...

JBK

@CaptHenway said:
During a typical coin strike the metal in the planchet moves outwards into the design indentations in either die. The metal near the center of the planchet moves very little. The metal near the surface of the planchet that happens to be near a die moves a lot, up into thek hammer die or down into the anvil die.

As that metal fills into the design elements, metal from the areas around the design elements moves sideways to replace it. Metal is also moved by the pressures imparted through the planchet by the opposing dies.

Got a cake pan with an embossed design in it? (My first wife had one with a cat design.) Think of the cake pan as a die. Make ten thin layers of croissant dough on a flat surface. Then add a sheet of waxed paper. Now add 20 thin layers of croissant dough atop the waxed paper. The entire mass of dough represents your planchet, with the waxed paper representing an internal flaw that has not yet separated.

Press the 31 layers of dough and waxed paper into your embossed cake pan. Press it in firmly. The bottom layers of dough will conform to the design in the pan, while the top layers will show the pressure marks from your hands. Think of your hands as the opposing die.

Now lift out the waxed paper, leaving just the bottom ten layers of dough in the pan. They will show a recognizable embossed image of the design in the cake pan. Not perfect, because of the sideways movement at the dough deformed into the pan, but there. That is how the incused stars and other elements were created on the underside of your split coin.

TD

Thx, that certainly helped explain it, but now what do I do with all this dough?

giantsfan20

I would say fake.The coin should have some some portion of coin remainig this one has none..

MedalCollector

I give this one a thumbs-up. And it's either one of two errors, in my opinion:

1) Post-strike split planchet.

2) Pre-strike split planchet, struck atop another planchet in the striking chamber.

The latter case would explain the wire rim. However the reverse die would have had to be the hammer die, rather than the anvil die.

jmlanzaf

@JBK said:

@CaptHenway said:

TD

Thx, that certainly helped explain it, but now what do I do with all this dough?

Got an oven?

CaptHenway

@jmlanzaf said:

@JBK said:

@CaptHenway said:

TD

Thx, that certainly helped explain it, but now what do I do with all this dough?

Got an oven?

Got some tomato paste, cheese, ham and pineapple?

CaptHenway

@GoldenEgg said:
I give this one a thumbs-up. And it's either one of two errors, in my opinion:

1) Post-strike split planchet.

2) Pre-strike split planchet, struck atop another planchet in the striking chamber.

The latter case would explain the wire rim. However the reverse die would have had to be the hammer die, rather than the anvil die.

In scenario "2)" you could have the thin split planchet laying on the anvil die, smooth side down, with a normal blank planchet atop it. Hard to say how a thin split planchet would be grabbed by the feed fingers. Could go in with another planchet atop it.

Another possibility "3)" would be that the flawed planchet was struck with the coin splitting in half during the strike, with the thinner reverse layer remaining on the anvil reverse die while the thicker obverse was ejected by the feed fingers and another normal blank planchet fed in atop the thin reverse. If it did not move relative to the reverse die, there would be no way of telling that the thinner piece was double struck.

However, I think that if the split side were struck up against a smooth planchet in either 2) or 3), the rough striations of the split would have been smoothed out by the pressure against smooth metal. Occam's Razor says that scenario 1) is the 99+% likely explanation.

TD

tincup

@CaptHenway said:

@GoldenEgg said:
I give this one a thumbs-up. And it's either one of two errors, in my opinion:

1) Post-strike split planchet.

2) Pre-strike split planchet, struck atop another planchet in the striking chamber.

The latter case would explain the wire rim. However the reverse die would have had to be the hammer die, rather than the anvil die.

In scenario "2)" you could have the thin split planchet laying on the anvil die, smooth side down, with a normal blank planchet atop it. Hard to say how a thin split planchet would be grabbed by the feed fingers. Could go in with another planchet atop it.

Another possibility "3)" would be that the flawed planchet was struck with the coin splitting in half during the strike, with the thinner reverse layer remaining on the anvil reverse die while the thicker obverse was ejected by the feed fingers and another normal blank planchet fed in atop the thin reverse. If it did not move relative to the reverse die, there would be no way of telling that the thinner piece was double struck.

However, I think that if the split side were struck up against a smooth planchet in either 2) or 3), the rough striations of the split would have been smoothed out by the pressure against smooth metal. Occam's Razor says that scenario 1) is the 99+% likely explanation.

TD

Those are a couple of possibilities that I had not considered... though I was wondering about how that double rim or overlapped rim on the reverse came to be. But I have to agree that if possibility #2 or #3 took place, it is hard to envision the striations resulting.

The coin has seen some circulation, and seems to have been some after the split occurred (the edges of the the spit side have some rounding as would be expected from being in circulation; it is not a 'sharp' edge). I also note that the striations are not rough at all; again perhaps from circulation, or... perhaps the 'smoothed' striations occurred after the #3 scenario. Coins that are double struck or overstruck do seem to display some remnants of the previous strike... so if the thin planchet with striations was 'overstruck' with a new blank planchet, then perhaps the design of the striations still remained but were smoothed out.

BLUEJAYWAY

What tends me to vote legit. is the leftover lam. just past the 6:30 point.