Now I'm curious, raised error on 1971 proof nickel someone posted on reddit...

Kurisu · May 22, 2026 6:37AM

The OP confirmed it's raised.
Seems too "neat" to be a gouge.
Couldn't be a dropped bit of letter, correct?
Clearly not a strike through.
I'm baffled and now I really want to know what this anomaly is...

Original post https://www.reddit.com/r/coinerrors/comments/1tjxihs/error_on_a_1971s_proof_nickel_retained/

Meltdown · May 22, 2026 7:01AM

Hmmm. It almost looks too perfect. Interesting.

CaptHenway · May 22, 2026 7:06AM

Interesting. Based on the light/shadow pattern it appears to be raised, yet does not look like foreign matter sitting on the surface.

We need another one to confirm a die variety. Anybody got one?

JBK · May 22, 2026 7:28AM

@Kurisu said:
The OP confirmed it's raised.
Seems too "neat" to be a gouge.
Couldn't be a dropped bit of letter, correct?
Clearly not a strike through.
I'm baffled and now I really want to know what this anomaly is...

Original post https://www.reddit.com/r/coinerrors/comments/1tjxihs/error_on_a_1971s_proof_nickel_retained/

EDIT: it appears to be a known variety.

If it's raised then it can't be a dropped letter, since a dropped letter would be struck into the coin.

However...I'm going to be a contrarian and suggest that the Reddit poster is incorrect, and that the anomaly is in fact incuse, in which case it is some sort of scrap, including possibly a dropped letter fragment.

Look at this photo. There is light reflection on both sides of the anomaly. On the other letters, there is only light reflection on the top side of the letters.

The light reflection underneath the anomaly would not be possible if it was raised.

It seems impossible that someone actually holding the coin could be mistaken about whether a feature is raised or incuse, but just a few weeks ago here on the Forum a poster insisted for days that the ampersand that appeared on both sides of his cent were raised but he finally conceded that he figured out that they were incused.

jmlanzaf · May 22, 2026 11:13AM

@JBK said:

@Kurisu said:
The OP confirmed it's raised.
Seems too "neat" to be a gouge.
Couldn't be a dropped bit of letter, correct?
Clearly not a strike through.
I'm baffled and now I really want to know what this anomaly is...

Original post https://www.reddit.com/r/coinerrors/comments/1tjxihs/error_on_a_1971s_proof_nickel_retained/

If it's raised then it can't be a dropped letter, since a dropped letter would be struck into the coin.

However...I'm going to be a contrarian and suggest that the Reddit poster is incorrect, and that the anomaly is in fact incuse, in which case it is some sort of scrap, including possibly a dropped letter fragment.

Look at this photo. There is light reflection on both sides of the anomaly. On the other letters, there is only light reflection on the top side of the letters.

The light reflection underneath the anomaly would not be possible if it was raised.

It seems impossible that someone actually holding the coin could be mistaken about whether a feature is raised or incuse, but just a few weeks ago here on the Forum a poster insisted for days that the ampersand that appeared on both sides of his cent were raised but he finally conceded that he figured out that they were incused.

I disagree. The reflecting light is consistent with a raised anomaly. The light appears on the upper side (in photo);of all 3 raised lines: the 2 sides of the U abs the anomaly. If the anomaly were incuse, there would be no light on the upper side. There would, instead, be light on the lower side of the infuse anomaly

JBK · May 22, 2026 11:25AM

@jmlanzaf said:

@JBK said:

@Kurisu said:
The OP confirmed it's raised.
Seems too "neat" to be a gouge.
Couldn't be a dropped bit of letter, correct?
Clearly not a strike through.
I'm baffled and now I really want to know what this anomaly is...

Original post https://www.reddit.com/r/coinerrors/comments/1tjxihs/error_on_a_1971s_proof_nickel_retained/

If it's raised then it can't be a dropped letter, since a dropped letter would be struck into the coin.

However...I'm going to be a contrarian and suggest that the Reddit poster is incorrect, and that the anomaly is in fact incuse, in which case it is some sort of scrap, including possibly a dropped letter fragment.

Look at this photo. There is light reflection on both sides of the anomaly. On the other letters, there is only light reflection on the top side of the letters.

The light reflection underneath the anomaly would not be possible if it was raised.

It seems impossible that someone actually holding the coin could be mistaken about whether a feature is raised or incuse, but just a few weeks ago here on the Forum a poster insisted for days that the ampersand that appeared on both sides of his cent were raised but he finally conceded that he figured out that they were incused.

I disagree. The reflecting light is consistent with a raised anomaly. The light appears on the upper side (in photo);of all 3 raised lines: the 2 sides of the U abs the anomaly. If the anomaly were incuse, there would be no light on the upper side. There would, instead, be light on the lower side of the infuse anomaly

I disagree with your disagreement. 😆

If the anomaly is raised, how is there light in the sliver of space between the bottom of the anomaly and the top of the leg of the U? If both are raised, that would be a very well protected (shadowed) area.

The light is at a very steep angle, which could explain the lack of light inside an incused area.

When I view it as incuse, the lighting effects make sense to me, but they do not as a raised feature.

MsMorrisine · May 22, 2026 11:42AM

raised

IkesT · May 22, 2026 11:47AM

The nickel is a known variety; others have been reported.

Here is another example:

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1061393/1971-proof-nickel-error-die-damage-or-dropped-letter-or

The best explanation for this phenomenon is hubbed in debris. A comparable example in the Eisenhower series is the 1971-S proof "night crawler" variety.

Kurisu · May 22, 2026 3:34PM

@IkesT said:
The nickel is a known variety; others have been reported.

Here is another example:

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1061393/1971-proof-nickel-error-die-damage-or-dropped-letter-or

The best explanation for this phenomenon is hubbed in debris. A comparable example in the Eisenhower series is the 1971-S proof "night crawler" variety.

Thank you for the forum research!

jmlanzaf · May 22, 2026 3:37PM

@JBK said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@JBK said:

@Kurisu said:
The OP confirmed it's raised.
Seems too "neat" to be a gouge.
Couldn't be a dropped bit of letter, correct?
Clearly not a strike through.
I'm baffled and now I really want to know what this anomaly is...

Original post https://www.reddit.com/r/coinerrors/comments/1tjxihs/error_on_a_1971s_proof_nickel_retained/

If it's raised then it can't be a dropped letter, since a dropped letter would be struck into the coin.

However...I'm going to be a contrarian and suggest that the Reddit poster is incorrect, and that the anomaly is in fact incuse, in which case it is some sort of scrap, including possibly a dropped letter fragment.

Look at this photo. There is light reflection on both sides of the anomaly. On the other letters, there is only light reflection on the top side of the letters.

The light reflection underneath the anomaly would not be possible if it was raised.

It seems impossible that someone actually holding the coin could be mistaken about whether a feature is raised or incuse, but just a few weeks ago here on the Forum a poster insisted for days that the ampersand that appeared on both sides of his cent were raised but he finally conceded that he figured out that they were incused.

I disagree. The reflecting light is consistent with a raised anomaly. The light appears on the upper side (in photo);of all 3 raised lines: the 2 sides of the U abs the anomaly. If the anomaly were incuse, there would be no light on the upper side. There would, instead, be light on the lower side of the infuse anomaly

I disagree with your disagreement. 😆

If the anomaly is raised, how is there light in the sliver of space between the bottom of the anomaly and the top of the leg of the U? If both are raised, that would be a very well protected (shadowed) area.

The light is at a very steep angle, which could explain the lack of light inside an incused area.

When I view it as incuse, the lighting effects make sense to me, but they do not as a raised feature.

The light is not at as low an angle as you are suggesting and it depends on how high the anomaly is.

Given the post from @IkesT , I'll rest my case. Lol

By the way, you noted it as raised in that prior thread. 😆

CaptHenway · May 22, 2026 4:21PM

@jmlanzaf said:

@JBK said:

@Kurisu said:
The OP confirmed it's raised.
Seems too "neat" to be a gouge.
Couldn't be a dropped bit of letter, correct?
Clearly not a strike through.
I'm baffled and now I really want to know what this anomaly is...

Original post https://www.reddit.com/r/coinerrors/comments/1tjxihs/error_on_a_1971s_proof_nickel_retained/

If it's raised then it can't be a dropped letter, since a dropped letter would be struck into the coin.

However...I'm going to be a contrarian and suggest that the Reddit poster is incorrect, and that the anomaly is in fact incuse, in which case it is some sort of scrap, including possibly a dropped letter fragment.

Look at this photo. There is light reflection on both sides of the anomaly. On the other letters, there is only light reflection on the top side of the letters.

The light reflection underneath the anomaly would not be possible if it was raised.

It seems impossible that someone actually holding the coin could be mistaken about whether a feature is raised or incuse, but just a few weeks ago here on the Forum a poster insisted for days that the ampersand that appeared on both sides of his cent were raised but he finally conceded that he figured out that they were incused.

I disagree. The reflecting light is consistent with a raised anomaly. The light appears on the upper side (in photo);of all 3 raised lines: the 2 sides of the U abs the anomaly. If the anomaly were incuse, there would be no light on the upper side. There would, instead, be light on the lower side of the infuse anomaly

You are correct.

CaptHenway · May 22, 2026 4:24PM

Here is another example:

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1061393/1971-proof-nickel-error-die-damage-or-dropped-letter-or

The best explanation for this phenomenon is hubbed in debris. A comparable example in the Eisenhower series is the 1971-S proof "night crawler" variety.

Thank you for remembering this for us.

IkesT · May 22, 2026 4:30PM

@Kurisu said:
Thank you for the forum research!

@CaptHenway said:
Thank you for remembering this for us.

You are both welcome!

DesertCoin · May 22, 2026 4:54PM

Interesting, now if it could get an FS number or something...

MsMorrisine · May 22, 2026 5:32PM

it would be interesting how it would be classified

Rc5280 · May 22, 2026 6:22PM

This image tells me that the anomaly is raised when I look at the angle of approach of the light to the south, vs the shadowing seen to the north, as seen on the nearby letters.
.

yosclimber · May 22, 2026 9:10PM

As mentioned in the reddit thread by user Apophis2051 9 hours ago, this is a known variety classified as WDDR-004,
originally submitted by Gary G. Wagnon.

https://www.briansvarietycoins.com/listings/view/1373

Wexler's doubleddie.com links directly to the above site for Jefferson nickel doubled die listings.
https://doubleddie.com/228401.html

Now I'm curious, raised error on 1971 proof nickel someone posted on reddit...

Comments

Leave a Comment