Options
1884 & 1885 3c Nickel Business Strike diagnostics
RichieURich
Posts: 8,398 ✭✭✭✭✭
In another thread, I posted the diagnostics of 1885 3c nickel business strikes (shown below). Now I am asking someone to provide the diagnostics for 1884 3c nickel business strikes.
<< <i>Rich, How were you able to tell it [1885 3c nickel in XF] was a business strike at the XF level?
OK, here's the secret:
1. The 1885 proofs have a 2 degree rotated reverse, while the 1885 business strikes have a 6 degree rotated reverse. Admittedly, 4 degrees difference is not much, but if you look at an 1885 proof and an 1885 business strike side by side, it's very easy to tell and you won't ever forget.
2. (And far easier than #1, but not always available) The coin was already in an XF slab from another grading service. I wanted it in a PCGS holder so I sent it to PCGS. >>
<< <i>Rich, How were you able to tell it [1885 3c nickel in XF] was a business strike at the XF level?
OK, here's the secret:
1. The 1885 proofs have a 2 degree rotated reverse, while the 1885 business strikes have a 6 degree rotated reverse. Admittedly, 4 degrees difference is not much, but if you look at an 1885 proof and an 1885 business strike side by side, it's very easy to tell and you won't ever forget.
2. (And far easier than #1, but not always available) The coin was already in an XF slab from another grading service. I wanted it in a PCGS holder so I sent it to PCGS. >>
0
Comments
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
I thought the folks at PCGS would have answered this but maybe it is in Coin Facts which requires a subscription.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
"Hi Robert,
Thanks for the email.
That is the question that everybody wants to know the answer to and nobody seems to be able to agree on. The Ultimate Guide to 3 Cent Nickels by Allan Gifford is the book that described all the differences between the varieties for the 1884, 1885, and other tough dates. Myself and others have found exceptions to the details that are described in the book so the issue still isn’t resolved.
One thing that I always feel is true is if the edge of the coin is mirrored like the fields of a proof coin then it has to be a proof and can not be a business strike.
As far as I know, there is no 100% accurate way of telling the difference. For example I recently saw a certified 1885 PR65 converted over to a 1885 MS65 by the same grading company. That is the difference of $500 to possibly $15,000. Here’s the problem, I looked at the coin and would still consider it a proof. So there you go, the waters are very muddy on this subject.
I used to sell the Gifford book but have not been able to get a reply from the author about buying anymore for resale. I think you can borrow the book from the ANA if you are a member at www.money.org .
For now the best thing you can do with an 1884 or 1885 is send it in to PCGS and see what they think.
Let me know if I can help with anymore information.
Best regards,
Gary"
Mint documents clearly state that collectors’ proofs were made on a medal press. Such a press was too slow for producing circulation strikes. Additionally, the medal press used different edge dies (collars) than production presses because the technology was different. Thus, coins struck on a medal press, and intended to be collectors’ proofs, will have different microscopic details than production press coins. Machining marks will be different.
A mirror-like edge on the coin is one indicator, but is not definitive. This is because the mirror surface of the edge die comes from the aggregate of polished planchets, not from deliberate polishing.
Lastly, extant medal department logs show that a large percentage of coins struck as “proofs” were rejected for one reason or another. The usable pieces were tossed in with regular circulation strikes, thus mixing products from two separate production areas.
Allan Gifford in his book pronounced the defining markers of an 1883 business strike die to be the evidence of a repunched first "8" in the 1883, and a bump at the hairline below the ribbon of Lady Liberty, on the obv. Both of these features were unequivocally present on this 1883 PR67CAM, below.
On the strength of that publication, I sent this coin to PCGS in Jan of 2005 for consideration as a mechanical error. It was returned to me, confirmed as a proof. In May of 2005 I sent it to Gifford for a personal inspection, who wrote an opinion letter pronouncing it as a business strike, based on the die characteristics. I sent it with the opinion letter to David Hall for a presidential review in June, who nonetheless insisted it was a proof. I repeated the gesture to Rick Montgomery at NGC: same response. Finally, I sent it without comment to John Albanese in April of this year, who applied a CAC sticker...as a proof.
I'll have to admit, it's always looked like a proof to me because of the detailing and the hammered/distinct denticles. But still, the controversy rages... I know some other collectors have approached David Hall since that time with other similar specimens, with similar responses.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
Bingo!! This is what Coins Magazine said in about 1979 or so. So, thier is no 100% proof positive way to tell a Proof from a business strike.
<< <i>"Lastly, extant medal department logs show that a large percentage of coins struck as “proofs” were rejected for one reason or another. The usable pieces were tossed in with regular circulation strikes, thus mixing products from two separate production areas."
Bingo!! This is what Coins Magazine said in about 1979 or so. So, thier is no 100% proof positive way to tell a Proof from a business strike.
that statement doesn't prove anything useful either way for attributing proofs vs BS other than some proofs that were impaired straight from the mint were mixed with some business strikes.
some/most/all/none of the diagnostics still may be present, even on those circulated proofs.
.
<< <i>how many dies may have been employed, as it is entirely possible that the 1000 coin run of business strikes could have been accomplished easily with one pair of dies, >>
true, only this quoted statement below makes one wonder just how many does "a large percentage" constitute. enough to employ another obv/rev die(s)?
<< <i>Lastly, extant medal department logs show that a large percentage of coins struck as “proofs” were rejected for one reason or another. The usable pieces were tossed in with regular circulation strikes, thus mixing products from two separate production areas. >>
Anyway, Gifford says that 2 obverse and 2 reverse dies were used in 1885 for business strikes. He also says that 3 obverse and 3 reverse dies were used in 1885 for proof strikes. Gifford estimates that there are 260 business strikes still extent (out of a total mintage of 1,000) and 1,760 proof strikes (out of a total mintage of 3,790).