Years ago an error dealer told me it was found in a sealed 1968-S proof set. I don't know if his information was first-hand, second-hand, or even more remote. Anectodal information of this sort is pretty useless in all cases.
Heritage says the design corresponds to 1970.
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
<< <i>Years ago an error dealer told me it was found in a sealed 1968-S proof set. I don't know if his information was first-hand, second-hand, or even more remote. Anectodal information of this sort is pretty useless in all cases.
Heritage says the design corresponds to 1970. >>
Errormaven: From my perspective, if it didn't come from a sealed Proof Set, then it was intentionally "manufactured". My logic is that all 68-S proof nickels were struck only for use in proof sets of that year. Is that an incorrect statement?
To answer your specific question, I was told that is was submitted in the original proof set holder. As I stated, the date is not visible anywhere on the coin. The major grading services are strict whether it was the Sac blanks, the cut off date for the first strikes etc. I can't believe that ANACS would slab this a 68s unless there was conclusive proof.
mikebyers.com Dealer in Major Mint Errors, Die Trials & Patterns - Author of NLG Best World Coin Book World's Greatest Mint Errors - Publisher & Editor of minterrornews.com.
Just out of curiosity, what are the subtle differences in the reverse design of proofs struck in 1968 and 1970? I assume Heritage had some basis for its assertion that the design resembled the 1970 version.
Mike Diamond is an error coin writer and researcher. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those held by any organization I am a member of.
Comments
Maybe ANACS called Dione Warwick's Psychic Friends Hotline to get the date prior to slabbing???
Heritage says the design corresponds to 1970.
<< <i>Years ago an error dealer told me it was found in a sealed 1968-S proof set. I don't know if his information was first-hand, second-hand, or even more remote. Anectodal information of this sort is pretty useless in all cases.
Heritage says the design corresponds to 1970. >>
Errormaven: From my perspective, if it didn't come from a sealed Proof Set, then it was intentionally "manufactured". My logic is that all 68-S proof nickels were struck only for use in proof sets of that year. Is that an incorrect statement?