New information on the 1913 Liberty head nickel
tradedollarnut
Posts: 20,240 ✭✭✭✭✭
These were struck from properly prepared and recorded circulation dies. The circumstances are still unknown but the dies weren’t prepared on the sly:
15
Comments
Intresting. i guess that proves the age old tale of them being struck without permission..
Very nice info! It's great to see the Barber nickel listed here which indicates the dies were stored and listed for destruction officially, which also supports that they were created officially.
Perhaps this also a continued reason to refer this to as the Barber nickel?
It does say the dies were "unused", so either they were used on the sly, struck after this letter, or the author misinterpreted the state of the dies.
Interesting. I haven't seen any of the coins up close, just the Walton specimen at shows from about a foot away. I'm assuming they're still proofs because although business strike dies were used, they were struck multiple times on polished planchets? Is there any sign the dies surreptitiously received any special preparation prior to being used to strike the coins?
If I'm not mistaken, a die being struck 5 times, could be missed. Since they at the time could strike thousands of coins before breaking.
I agree the author could be mistaken. That's my option 3 above. My option 1 really isn't any option here, I was just parroting the "sly" phrase from TDN.
If these are the dies used, they were used to strike coins either before or after the letter dated Dec 31, 1913.
Another possibility could be that a different set of dies were used to do the strikes.
They are not proofs. Neither are 1894-S dimes.
It does say the dies were "unused", so either they were used on the sly, struck after this letter, or the author misinterpreted the state of the dies.
Without the inventory & destruction report of the actually used dies, there’s nothing to support the assertion that a pair of these ‘unused’ dies was used to strike the coins. Now, if said report exists and shows none then I’d support your conjecture.
PCGS says they are proofs
JD says they aren’t. They were struck on unpolished planchet using circulation strike dies.
If the planchets are unpolished and the dies are circulation dies, how could PCGS come to the conclusion they are proofs?
Will you get yours regraded as MS?
Here's a photo showing it with the Proof grade:
Who is JD? Is he someone associated with their production?
John Dannreuther is a numismatic researcher that has looked a the nickels closely. Here's some info:
https://coinweek.com/recent-articles-video/classic-us-coins-1913-liberty-nickel-years/
Who were the others on the 6-person authentication team?
I remember hearing David Hall and @FredWeinberg were.
Paragraph three of the below linked article mentions five participants: David Hall, Fred Weinberg, Jeff Garrett, John Dannreuther, and Paul Montgomery.
https://www.littletoncoin.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Display|10001|29555|-1||AboutNav|news072903.html
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Great find Mark!
They should update their article to say these are business strikes. Has JD published his findings and conclusions on this?
Interesting information. As this is the end of the year, one can assume the dies were around for most (if not all) of 1913.
The "proof" portion seems to go all the way back to 1920. The article in the October 1920 Numismatist has the following.
"and from this master die a few pieces -- believed to be five -- in proof were struck."
that sure is interesting news
Of course they were 'unused". 50 obverse and 80 reverse "Barber-Liberty" dies slated for destruction. I'm surprised that the Mint waited so long to get rid of them.
This shows that the 2 dies could have been "borrowed" at any time in 1913 (or any date before they all were destroyed).
Pete
I have been using the Denver Mint's Die Registry book a lot for my research into the cents of 1922. This thread made me go look at the Nickels section. There were eight unused Liberty Nickel reverses left over when the production of 1912-D nickels ended. In a continuing series these would simply be retained for used in a following year, but there is no indication as to what became of them.
Curiously, a big deal was made about the return of both used and unused Type One Buffalo nickel reverses when the new style reverses came out.
Great find. Thanks for sharing. Cool to see the "MS" paper trail.
So, I'm wondering about unused dies. If the 5c dies had been used, would they have had the same "look" as the unused ones?
Didn't all five coins end up with one, then a second, person?
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
They started with one person, Samuel W. Brown, who first showed them in 1920. Presumably he sold them all and they showed up next in 1924 with dealer August Wagner. Then they showed up with Colonel Green.
Samuel W. Brown showed one in 1920, but also showed one in late 1919.
Very interesting new information Bruce. This suggest a noble and planned start to the process for making 1913 Liberty Nickels. I would suggest that the information makes some of the assumptions about there nefarious nature more suspect and nefarious!
I don’t think the dies existence was in much doubt. The doubt is on whether they were authorized to be struck. I read that RW Julian found records as well. From VanRyzen’s book:
“Noted researcher R.W. Julian, who had access to Mint documents subsequently destroyed, has effectively argued the latter theory — claiming that if the coins were struck prior to the release of the Indian Head nickel, the striking would need to have taken place sometime following the December 1912 order to change to James Earle Fraser’s Indian Head nickel design and before a general defacement of outdated dies at year’s end. Julian was able to substantiate the existence of 1913-dated Liberty Head nickel dies through records of a shipment to the San Francisco Mint. The shipment was made prior to the decision to change to the Indian Head nickel design.”
That was sourced from his article in Coins Magazine May 1975 p69.
There was at one time speculation that they were produced outside the Mint. In part, I think this was because of the Mint's denial that they made them. In recent years, I haven't heard that speculation anymore.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I wonder if counterfeits have gotten so good that people won't believe new coins that come out this way now.
The only "back door" to the Mint these days appears to be "errors".
Back in the pre-1933 period, they were doing all kinds of favors for dealers and privileged customers.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
OK this is interesting - so why only 5?
And for themselves, too. While not making collectable coinage for himself, Chief Engraver John Sinnock had a taste for the unusual.
Instead of destroying test coinage (like the 1927 SP Nickels), he squirreled them away into his personal collection.
The stuff only became known after he passed away.
Pete
The document in the OP says "...proof and unused..." So that implies there were two conditions of the dies - proof dies and unused dies. Unless it was poorly written and should have said "....proof unused...."....Cheers, RickO
I wish to be mint privileged!
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"