Your opinions on two interesting 1939 nickels.
SanctionII
Posts: 12,619 ✭✭✭✭✭
1
0
SanctionII
Posts: 12,619 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
2
1st one - well worn PMD.
2nd one - counterstamped.
That's my opinion, any way.
1- damage- both sides
2- counterstamp, and damage -- both sides
BHNC #203
1 at first glance appears to have a clip, looking at the obverse. Looking at the rim reveals that the item that looks like a clip is not across the entire rim, just a portion of same. The reverse shows no sign of a clip. This leads me to think this is PMD. The reverse is interesting in that it shows a portion of Monticello missing. There is a depression present running from the bottom of Montcello to the top. The depression area shows what appear to be almost vertical recessed lines (scratches?). These lines do not extend above the top of Monticello into the fields. There are a few of these lines that extend below Monticello into the fields. I think it is likely PMD but I am not sure.
2 is pretty cool IMO. Someone chose to stamp the obverse and reverse devices with what appear to be letters, or numbers or other items. I have never seen a stamped Jefferson nickel before.
I was looking through nickels I collected from pocket change as a YN 50+ years ago and found these to coins.
I love 1939 nickels, in fact I probably have every 1939 nickel I have received in change, plus a couple hundred I bought, circulated rolls, bu rolls, proofs...............gotta admit, I like 39's in P, D, & S
Here is one of many 39's I have
Now don't get me started on 42's Ahhhh
Steve
That holder looks pretty old - you could probably get it reslabbed in a nicer one.
I agree with the PMD conclusion.... and I have not seen a counterstamped Jefferson before...Cheers, RickO