I'd agree under this magnification it does look to be slightly "off" but if you stare at anything long enough it will start to look strange. For example, doesn't the E of Monticello seem to have too much space on either side also?
@ModCrewman said:
I'd agree under this magnification it does look to be slightly "off" but if you stare at anything long enough it will start to look strange. For example, doesn't the E of Monticello seem to have too much space on either side also?
Comments
I'd agree under this magnification it does look to be slightly "off" but if you stare at anything long enough it will start to look strange. For example, doesn't the E of Monticello seem to have too much space on either side also?
Well if you look at it from a different angle, then the C looks off. they both must be set a little higher.
yes.![:) :)](https://forums.collectors.com/resources/emoji/smile.png)
Don't quote me on that.
Here is a 63 nickel that I had in change...looks like the S is "off" on it as well...
![](https://us.v-cdn.net/6027503/uploads/editor/t1/yk8voutg0889.jpg)
Don't quote me on that.
The mint overused Jefferson Nickel dies for years. The result is what you are seeing. The letters spread out as the die erodes.
Pete
I agree with all of you.
Yep... looks like die wear/erosion..... Jeffersons - the older one's - seem to show these aberrations frequently. Cheers, RickO
From what can see, both the C and the S are assuredly on the nickel.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Don't know how long die's last, but the original picture is a 225th enhanced uncirculated nickel, which had a mintage of 225,000....
Don't quote me on that.