How in the world did ANACS know the date of this coin?

MrEureka · October 25, 2006 11:20AM

ChuckC · October 25, 2006 11:21AM

WAG:

Coin was submitted in original mint packaging?

Russ · October 25, 2006 11:22AM

Lucky guess?

Russ, NCNE

Wolf359 · October 25, 2006 11:24AM

Die Markers?

AnkurJ · October 25, 2006 11:35AM

Wild guess?

IGWT · October 25, 2006 11:59AM

Well, the mint mark was moved to the obverse in 1968; and, since it's missing from the reverse, the coin was struck in '68 or later. There were subsequent modifications to the design (the first change after '68 came in '71) so I suppose that a Jefferson 5c specialist could confirm the range of 1968 - 1970 based upon the design details. I have no idea how one could differentiate among those three years.

Leiana · October 25, 2006 12:01PM

<< Well, the mint mark was moved to the obverse in 1968; and, since it's missing from the reverse, the coin was struck in '68 or later. There were subsequent modifications to the design (the first change after '68 came in '71) so I suppose that a Jefferson 5c specialist could confirm the range of 1968 - 1970 based upon the design details. I have no idea how one could differentiate among those three years. >>

But the P wasn't used for Philadelphia proof coins.

Otherwise, I agree with you.

-Amanda

mozeppa · October 25, 2006 12:02PM

not in 68.

WoodenJefferson · October 25, 2006 12:03PM

IGWT · October 25, 2006 12:07PM

-- "But the P wasn't used for Philadelphia proof coins." --

I could be wrong, Amanda, because this area isn't my specialty, but I don't think that Philly minted any proof 5c '68-'70.

Leiana · October 25, 2006 12:09PM

<< -- "But the P wasn't used for Philadelphia proof coins." --

I could be wrong, Amanda, because this area isn't my specialty, but I don't think that Philly minted any proof 5c '68-'70. >>

No, they stopped in 64, but if it was 64 or earlier, there would be no MM on the reverse anyways.

-Amanda

IGWT · October 25, 2006 12:24PM

-- "No, they stopped in 64, but if it was 64 or earlier, there would be no MM on the reverse anyways." --

Hmmm. So the absence of a mint mark doesn't help, and we're left with nothing but the modifications to the design for the period '68 -'70. I knew I should have just left the question to someone who knows what she's talking about.

Leiana · October 25, 2006 12:27PM

<< -- "No, they stopped in 64, but if it was 64 or earlier, there would be no MM on the reverse anyways." --

Hmmm. So the absence of a mint mark doesn't help, and we're left with nothing but the modifications to the design for the period '68 -'70. I knew I should have just left the question to someone who knows what she's talking about.

>>

I looked up how the nickel changed over time, and I could come up with no information to suppourt it being a 68S unless it was submitted in the original packaging.

So I don't entirely know what I'm talking about.

-Amanda

robertpr · October 25, 2006 12:28PM

I'd be willing to bet it was submitted in it's original packaging. That is the only way to have known.

Byers · October 25, 2006 2:14PM

How is this any different than PCGS slabbing Sac blanks with the 2000 date???
Or the services slabbing FIRST STRIKE designations???

IT'S THE PACKAGING.

MWallace · October 25, 2006 7:32PM

The bigger question to me is why is there no evidence of a second strike on the reverse????

dorkkarl · October 25, 2006 9:04PM

the first strike was normal, including the date. the second strike did not entirely efface the existing date, ie it's still visible under close examination. & the crappy digi-pic is not detailed enough to show this.

K S

kranky · October 25, 2006 9:12PM

I would also guess it was submitted in the original Mint packaging.

I enjoy these types of threads. I'll be interested to find out the answer as well as why the reverse doesn't show a double strike.

numisma · October 25, 2006 10:13PM

It was made to order.

PerryHall · October 25, 2006 11:11PM

Could someone explain how the second strike only occured on one side of the coin? The second strike on the obverse was strong and totally flattened the first strike yet the reverse shows little or no change to the first strike. I've never seen this on other double struck coins.

MikeInFL · October 25, 2006 11:21PM

Perhaps it was submitted in the original proof set...Mike

ABC123 · October 25, 2006 11:43PM

WAG !

numisma · October 26, 2006 12:24AM

Could someone explain how the second strike only occured on one side of the coin? The second strike on the obverse was strong and totally flattened the first strike yet the reverse shows little or no change to the first strike. I've never seen this on other double struck coins.

Edited to say:

Okay, you got me on this one. At fist look I thought it was an indented off-center second strike, but that doesn't work in this case.

I would guess that this is a "double struck with offset die misalignment" error. The coin was in the collar for the second strike. It is a proof, so it was struck more than once in the collar, but the obverse die became severely misaligned while the anvil die remained in-line. How the obverse die became so misaligned is amazing to me. Maybe one of the error experts can elaborate. Maybe I am missing something here. I remember working with a couple of similar pieces of early large cents when cataloging the Mid-West collection of error coppers.

numisma · October 26, 2006 12:34AM

How in the world did ANACS know the date of this coin?

It could be either a 68-S or a 70-S. Modified reverse design from 67, changed again in 71.

CaptHenway · October 26, 2006 12:43AM

Often on a double struck coin you can see the detail of the first strike flattened down to the level of the field but not completely obliterated. I would guess that you do this on this coin holding it in your hand where you can flash it back and forth under a glass.
TD

braddick · October 26, 2006 1:17AM

Neat error, but sure is a bit pricey.

numisma · October 26, 2006 1:21AM

<< <a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://coins.heritageauctions.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=428&Lot_No=1973" target=blank>Neat error, but sure is a bit pricey.</A> >>

That's neat. Here's what Heritage says: The first strike is normal. The second strike is 45% off center toward 4:30. The second strike buckled the portion of the first strike uneffaced by the second strike.

I don't get it. Do you?

Conder101 · October 26, 2006 1:28AM

<< Could someone explain how the second strike only occured on one side of the coin? >>

On the second strike the coin was off-center but there was another planchet in the coining chamber. The obverse received the impression of the obverse die but on the reverse the off center coin simply impressed it's design into the other planchet. So there would be another error nickel produced that shows the date, mintmark and the lower portion of the bust and the rest of the coin would be an off-center brockage of the reverse. The reverse of that coin would be normal. (Of course being a proof, we probably are not really talking second strike here because it probably received the second strike before it was removed from the coining chamber. What we are calling the "second strike" is probably the third and maybe third and fourth strikes.)

<< It could be either a 68-S or a 70-S. Modified reverse design from 67, changed again in 71 >>

Why not a 69-S as well?

This coin was probably also "helped" into existance.

numisma · October 26, 2006 1:34AM

On the second strike the coin was off-center but there was another planchet in the coining chamber. The obverse received the impression of the obverse die but on the reverse the off center coin simply impressed it's design into the other planchet. So there would be another error nickel produced that shows the date, mintmark and the lower portion of the bust and the rest of the coin would be an off-center brockage of the reverse. The reverse of that coin would be normal. (Of course being a proof, we probably are not really talking second strike here because it probably received the second strike before it was removed from the coining chamber. What we are calling the "second strike" is probably the third and maybe third and fourth strikes.)

That's essentially what I stated in my post above, but I edited it after thinking about it. That would be an indented double strike error. However, it doesn't quite work. If the coin were struck 50% off-center on the second strike, then the planchet would show deformation. Take a look at the pic in the OP and the coin is perfectly round, suggesting that it remained in the chamber (closed collar) for the second strike. The obverse (hammer) die was misaligned for the second (3rd or 4th) strike, thus creating the error. Also, with an indented double strike error, you would see much more deformation on the reverse, even it is nickel (but more so with copper or silver).

I think Heritage kinda skirted the issue with their description. I would like to hear from one of the error experts on this forum.......

Jcarney · October 26, 2006 1:47AM

Heritage says:

<< we are not certain of its date or mintmark. It is the Reverse of 1970 subtype. >>

I'm certain of the mintmark, why aren't they?

BigE · October 26, 2006 1:53AM

Since the date of the coin has little to do with its value (not a cameo), ANACS probably wasn't too worried about it----------BigE

UncleJoe · October 26, 2006 2:02AM

Since the date of the coin has little to do with its value (not a cameo), ANACS probably wasn't too worried about it

Since when do TPG's put information on the label based on value?

There MUST be a reason (I hope) that ANACS knows the date. Anyway we can find out from ANACS?

Joe.

LALASD4 · October 26, 2006 2:03AM

I think I remember that it is a mis-aligned Obverse Die on the second strike, I wonder who the owner is now? I saw it in Mike Byers's inventory then in Error Coin Trader's inventory in the past.

BigE · October 26, 2006 2:06AM

Let me put it this way, if the date was proven wrong, what would ANACS pay you under their guarantee?

----------BigE

numisma · October 26, 2006 2:19AM

How in the world did ANACS know the date of this coin?

As others have already said in this thread, it was found in a 1968 proof set. 1968-S proof nickels only left the mint one way; in goverment packaging.

BigE · October 26, 2006 2:51AM

They should have left it in the original set, would have been a lot neater that way!-------BigE

FredWeinberg · October 26, 2006 3:27AM

I seriously doubt it was found in
a package Proof Set.

numisma · October 26, 2006 3:32AM

<< I seriously doubt it was found in
a package Proof Set. >>

Think it was "manufactured"? Also, do you agree that it is double struck with obverse die misalignment error?

seanq · October 26, 2006 3:35AM

Any chance this coin was originally part of the hoard of SF Mint errors that the state of California sold? They auctioned off the contents of an abandoned safety deposit box which wound up containing dozens of proof and SMS errors. I'm thinking the coin might have been in with other 1968-S errors and ANACS felt that provenance was good enough evidence to date it.

Also, the coin was struck by a misaligned obverse die while it sat on the reverse die. That is why there is no distortion of the reverse design elements, and also why the coin buckled slightly toward the obverse.

Sean Reynolds

FredWeinberg · October 26, 2006 3:40AM

It wasn't in the large group of 235+ pieces that I bought
from the State of Calif. Safe Deposit Box deal. (That deal
had the first Two-Tailed Quarter in it, and quite a few of
the 235 pieces, but not all, were Proofs. That deal had
some spectacular BU and Proof San Francisco Mint Errors
in it, but not this piece.

As for this nickel, it's impossible to know if it was made
intentionally and taken out of the Mint, or made as
part of the normal minting process, and then taken out
of the Mint.

I'm not so sure it's a mis-aligned obv. 2nd strike. I believe
that the second strike had a blank in the collar; should it
have left more indication of same on the reverse? Possibly,
but don't forget we're dealing with a high-tonage Proof striking.

As far as how ANACS saw the date, I'd guess that under a glass,
you can make out enough detail to know........

UncleJoe · October 26, 2006 3:44AM

Maybe the date is on the edge of the coin.

Joe.

numisma · October 26, 2006 3:54AM

I thought that 100% of the proof mintages went into sets in 1968. Is that not correct?

numisma · October 26, 2006 4:42AM

I'm not so sure it's a mis-aligned obv. 2nd strike. I believe
that the second strike had a blank in the collar; should it
have left more indication of same on the reverse? Possibly,
but don't forget we're dealing with a high-tonage Proof striking.

That was my initial thought, but how can we explain why the coin is perfectly round? It MUST have been in the collar for the second strike, which says misaligned obverse dbl strike. As you said, it was a high-tonage press. That would have smashed the planchet out of round on the second strike........unless it were retained by the collar. And it is hard to imagine an ident double strike with very little deformation on the reverse. Seems like it would have smashed the first reverse strike to pieces.

Dog97 · October 26, 2006 4:59AM

<<<That was my initial thought, but how can we explain why the coin is perfectly round? It MUST have been in the collar for the second strike, which says misaligned obverse dbl strike. As you said, it was a high-tonage press. That would have smashed the planchet out of round on the second strike........unless it were retained by the collar. And it is hard to imagine an ident double strike with very little deformation on the reverse. Seems like it would have smashed the first reverse strike to pieces.>>>

The coin that received indent from it would be the one smashed out of round and look something like this:

Aegis3 · October 26, 2006 5:21AM

<< I'm not so sure it's a mis-aligned obv. 2nd strike. I believe
that the second strike had a blank in the collar; should it
have left more indication of same on the reverse? Possibly,
but don't forget we're dealing with a high-tonage Proof striking.

That was my initial thought, but how can we explain why the coin is perfectly round? It MUST have been in the collar for the second strike, which says misaligned obverse dbl strike. As you said, it was a high-tonage press. That would have smashed the planchet out of round on the second strike........unless it were retained by the collar. And it is hard to imagine an ident double strike with very little deformation on the reverse. Seems like it would have smashed the first reverse strike to pieces. >>

As an error collector, I find the misaligned obverse second strike to be the most likely explanation.

errormaven · October 26, 2006 1:21PM

The second strike involved an obverse die that was misaligned about 40%. The misaligned strike caused the exposed part of the coin to buckle upward. Both strikes were confined within the collar. Presumably the misaligned obverse die depressed the collar down to the level of the obverse face.

Such massive misalignments are surpassingly rare, but a few are known in business strikes.

errormaven · October 26, 2006 1:22PM

<< the first strike was normal, including the date. the second strike did not entirely efface the existing date, ie it's still visible under close examination. & the crappy digi-pic is not detailed enough to show this.

K S >>

I examined this coin personally at the most recent ANA show. The date was completely obliterated.

errormaven · October 26, 2006 1:25PM

<< How the obverse die became so misaligned is amazing to me. Maybe one of the error experts can elaborate. Maybe I am missing something here. I remember working with a couple of similar pieces of early large cents when cataloging the Mid-West collection of error coppers. >>

The misalignment appears too great to be caused by a loose die moving laterally within its recess. I doubt sufficient room exists for this amount of movement and, in any case, any die this loose would almost assuredly fall out. It's more likely that the entire die carriage shifted to one side between the first and second strikes. Whether this occurred spontaneously, or was helped along, I cannot say.

Byers · October 26, 2006 5:40PM

Fred- I owned this error until very recently. There is NO visible date showing underneath.

numisma · October 26, 2006 11:22PM

Great input from the error experts. Thanks. The die carriage shift theory makes a lot of sense.

Now, one final question directed to Mr. Byers: since you are close to this coin, do you have any insight as to how ANACS knew the date? Came out of a proof set? That was MrEureka's opening question in this thread and it got sidetracked a bit.

keets · October 27, 2006 12:04AM

Occam's razor......................

How in the world did ANACS know the date of this coin?

Comments

Leave a Comment