Why and when was the 1913 nickel monetized?

Barry · May 26, 2003 8:50PM

Inquiring mind wants to know. Thanks.

dorkkarl · May 26, 2003 8:53PM

dunno

is it true that only 4 of the 5 are presently accounted for?

K S

Barry · May 26, 2003 9:01PM

Apparently, Karl. B&M has a big marketing ploy going on, offering $1M "reward" for the fifth. It was even on our local news this morning.
I read #5 was supposedly on the way to being sold when the seller was killed in a car accident and it disappeard (in NC, I believe).

tradedollarnut · May 27, 2003 12:31AM

In the 19th century, proof coins were treated as medals - completely different than circulating coinage. If this were still in effect during 1913, there would have been no monetization required.

Julian · May 27, 2003 12:49AM

In as much as the nickel was made after hours, surreptitiously, I doubt that it is money, and a case could be made for them to be considered contraband, and subject to seizure. This group could include patterns, and even, restrikes.

I believe that all of these coins will continue to be off the radar screen, because of the historical precedence for numismatic ownership.

That is an entirely different matter from them being money.

tradedollarnut · May 27, 2003 1:11AM

In as much as the nickel was made after hours, surreptitiously, I doubt that it is money, and a case could be made for them to be considered contraband, and subject to seizure.

Julian: Please don't spread unfounded rumors!

The truth is that the exact circumstance of their minting is unknown. I can think of three or four possibilities for the coins to have been created quite legally, all of which have just as much evidence [ie: none] to support them as the idea that they were created on the sly. The fact that Mr Brown ended up with them DOES NOT in of itself prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were created illegally.

Can you address whether or not proof coinage in 1913 was treated the same as in the 1880's??

I would be most interested in whether or not the presentation case was of mint origin!

Julian · May 27, 2003 1:27AM

You're right, Bruce, I have no proof that they were not made legally. I was just going on the historical theory.

I am going to pass this via email to Eric Newman, who I think may have handled, or had the opportunity to purchase, the nickels. In any event, I believe that he does have the copper Buffalo, and the case, which I do not think is mint issue. Hopefully, he will be able to shed some light on this.

BTW, Eric celebrated his 92nd birthday on Sunday.

LegendSteve · May 27, 2003 1:39AM

BTW, Eric celebrated his 92nd birthday on Sunday.

Yes, QDB made an announcement in the latest NBS e-newsletter.

Steve

dbldie55 · May 27, 2003 1:39AM

Eric does still have the leather pouch and the J-1720 Copper Buffalo nickel (I think it is a 1720). I have spoke with him about this a few times via snail mail. I contained the 5 Liberty Nickels and 3 buffalo. I forgot the exact buffalo's (except the copper pattern) and will have to look when I get home.

Johnscoin · May 27, 2003 1:40AM

Yes, Mr. Newman should have some great answers. That would be exciting to hear from. However, isn't it debatable whether or not the 5th coin was on its way to being sold. There's no proof of whether or not the dealer in NC actually had the coin is there?

tradedollarnut · May 27, 2003 6:00AM

If you see this thread, Happy Birthday Eric!

Conder101 · May 27, 2003 6:07AM

The case was not of mint origin, my understanding is that Col Green had it made.

<< <i>I can think of three or four possibilities for the coins to have been created quite legally, all of which have just as much evidence [ie: none] to support them as the idea that they were created on the sly. >>

I can only think of one and it doesn't strike me as very likely. That one is that they were pieces struck in 1912 to test one of the dies being made for the following year. But as far as I know the mint does not routinely "test" all of the dies they make so why test one of the dies? After all it wasn't a new design, they knew how it would strike up and as far as I know they weren't having problems with the 1912 dies.

At that time the mint was not pre-striking coins for the following year like they do now so they would not have been pre-struck coins that got out.

There is no way that they could have bee struck in early 1913 and have gotten out , or have been assay coins like many people have suggested since the Mint had known since Dec 12th 1912 that they were NOT going to be striking 1913 V nickels. All of the Philadelphia 1913 V nickel dies were destroyed in mid December and the 10 pairs of dies sent to San Francisco were returned around December 24th and were destroyed on the 27th. So no 1913 V nickel dies existed in 1913.

I don't think regulations regarding proof coins would apply since I don't think the coins are proofs. Two of the coins have been described as proofs and the other three are called Uncs yet they are all from the same pair of dies and most likely struck at the same time. What I think you have are five coins that exhibit prooflike surfaces because they are the first five coins struck from a brand new die, not true proofs.

Barry · May 27, 2003 6:41AM

So why hasn't the Secret Service gone after the 1913 nickels like they tried to do with the Farouk $20?

tradedollarnut · May 27, 2003 6:51AM

Completely different situation.

flaminio · May 27, 2003 8:34AM

Would the Coinage Act of 1965 monetized the 1913 Nickels? (This is, of course, assuming they were ever not money.)

Conder101 · May 27, 2003 10:29AM

No because the law guaranteed legal tender status to all US coins whenever they were struck, but the 1913 V nickel was never a US coin. If they were die test pieces they were just test pieces and if they were struck with no authority then they were not struck by the US government and are not US coins so the Coinage Act of 1965 would not apply.

Mark · May 27, 2003 12:16PM

I agree with Conder--I can't see any legal way these coins were struck. Plus, they wind up in an ex-mint employee's pocket and he advertises asking to buy them just after the statue of limitations for stolen material has passed. (I think all my comments are correct--can someone correct anything I got wrong? And thanks in advance.) So, if indeed I did get all my comments correct, I think Occam's razor can be applied and it can be concluded that these coins are the result of a midnight minter. However, in my poverty stricken estimation, that concusion does not lessen their desirability one bit.

Julian: It would so increddibly cool if Mr. Newman could post (or you could post for him) a short discussion about his handling of these coins. I don't know if this information is available elsewhere, but I sure hope it is because it would be fascinating.

Mark

GDJMSP · May 27, 2003 1:15PM

When the man had the accident back in the 60's he was on his way back from visiting a man by the name of Reynolds I think it was. The dealer supposedly bought the missing 1913 nickel from Reynolds and was going to sell it.

In the course of the accident investigation the police searched the car and surrounding area. What most people are unaware of is that a 1913 Liberty nickel was found at the scene. Somehow when the story is told - that little bit is always left out. But it helps add to the legend to conveniently forget stuff like that.

But before you go getting all excited - it was not the last of the 5 1913 Liberty nickels. It was an altered coin - a fake. The dealer had been had by Mr. Reynolds.

To date know one knows - or is telling - what ever happened to the real nickel. I have always held out hope that it was something like what Hallie Dagget did with one of '94-S Barber dimes.

michael · May 27, 2003 3:09PM

why and when was the 1913 lib nickel monetized????

the short answer is never

it is not a legal mint product technically it is not legal to own but currently it doesnot have the us govt concerned nor pursueing it at the present time and most probsbly will not in the forseeable future
kind of like it against the law to jaywalk yet for the most part noone is ever arrested for doing it and it is just not inforced

but be that as it may..................... technically by law it is NOT legal to own as it was struck and left the mint illegally same as many other coins struck at the mint which we will not go into here

sincerely michael

Higashiyama · May 27, 2003 3:22PM

Michael -- are you referring to that peace dollar you showed me? Or was it the small hoard of aluminum cents?

michael · May 28, 2003 1:37PM

LOL hi there higa!

i would love the 64 peace dollar or one of the 1974 aluminum cents

but still it would be no fun as you could never show it to anyone!

sincerely michael

BigAlan · May 28, 2003 4:13PM

I read #5 was supposedly on the way to being sold when the seller was killed in a car accident and it disappeard (in NC, I believe).

He was on his way to a show in Wilson, NC, I think in 1962. I waited all day to see that nickel. About 5 o'clock they announced he had died in a wreck on Hwy 42.

Baley · May 28, 2003 6:59PM

oh, there was lots of shenanigans goin on at the mint in the olden days, special strikes, fantasy coins, etc. oh those were the days! the 1913 nickel is one of those gray coins that's why it's so storied!

Why and when was the 1913 nickel monetized?

Comments

Leave a Comment