Please help me with this Shield Nickel.

Romankow

I am trying to determine the date on this Shield Nickel. It is either 1882 or 1883, but I can't tell which.

More importantly, could this be a rare 1883, 3 Over 2 variety?

Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks!

TommyType

I don't know the answer....But it looks like a 2 to me.

I know more than a few people have been fooled by a "blobby 2" into believing it might be a 3/2....including me. There is an expert or two on these boards who should be able to set us straight.

Jimnight

To me... it looks like a 2.

cmerlo1

Die chips in the 2 are extremely common. I have seen these being sold as 3/2's (I don't think there's any fraud- the dealers are simply mistaken), and see a lot of them brought to my ANACS table. Some of the 3/2 dies are quite spectacular, and you won't have to wonder if it is or isn't.

mannie gray

1882....may be a repunched date......a closeup of the date and its position to the ball would allow me to determine for sure.

291fifth

1882. Die problems with shield nickels are very common.

Treashunt

1882, and, not the overdate

LoveMyLiberty

The date on your coin is too close together to be
the FS-302 & I believe the "3" would be prominent.
Yours has the "2" prominent.
Go to Coinfacts, they have a section discussing this
and images of the 3 over 2.

BuffaloIronTail

Things like what you posted are reasons why the design was changed................

Pete

Treashunt

I have seen a number of these in dealers' showcases listed as 1883/2

I (sometimes) convince them that 1) I have no interest in it, and 2) it wasn't the overdate.

Sometimes they believe me, sometimes not.

johnny9434

looks like a 2 to me as well

COINS MAKE CENTS

Definitely a 2

1630Boston

I see a 2

Batman23

1882

Raybo

The person that would know has left us.

howards

@Raybo said:
The person that would know has left us.

No idea why you say that, as there are several people around who could answer this accurately.

This is an 1882 with a filled 2. Very common. My web page explains more:

http://www.shieldnickels.net/1883_2/1882Filled2.html

Raybo

@howards said:

@Raybo said:
The person that would know has left us.

No idea why you say that, as there are several people around who could answer this accurately.

This is an 1882 with a filled 2. Very common. My web page explains more:

http://www.shieldnickels.net/1883_2/1882Filled2.html

It's a miracle! He's back from the non-posters grave...Hallelujah!
Just a joke howards, you are the shield guru.

howards

Reports of my death are exaggerated. :-) It's just that shield nickel questions don't come up that often, and others are better qualified than I am to answer questions on other series.

howards

@Treashunt said:
I have seen a number of these in dealers' showcases listed as 1883/2

I (sometimes) convince them that 1) I have no interest in it, and 2) it wasn't the overdate.

Sometimes they believe me, sometimes not.

These days I only answer questions about the 1883/2 if I'm really asked. Volunteering information has met with a number of disagreeable responses. Many people don't want to know that their "valuable" 1883/2 is not what they think it is.

ricko

That is a 2.... likely a bit of PMD causing a slight malformation... Cheers, RickO

Treashunt

@howards said:

@Treashunt said:
I have seen a number of these in dealers' showcases listed as 1883/2

I (sometimes) convince them that 1) I have no interest in it, and 2) it wasn't the overdate.

Sometimes they believe me, sometimes not.

These days I only answer questions about the 1883/2 if I'm really asked. Volunteering information has met with a number of disagreeable responses. Many people don't want to know that their "valuable" 1883/2 is not what they think it is.

agreed.