1883 Shield Nickel.....possible 3/2.

Oney · October 30, 2006 9:45AM

I showed this coin before but I was never able to get a close-up of the date to show the possible 3/2. I know there is a site out there for this reference, but this seems to be something different. What do you think? I bought a new Sigma lens and it does a great job at closing in on the date.

airplanenut · October 30, 2006 9:50AM

Are the die chip on the left of the 1 (in the middle) or the extra metal within the second 8 of any significance to the variety?

kranky · October 30, 2006 9:51AM

It appears to match variety F-03 for 1883 in Fletcher's book on Shield nickels. He describes it as a repunched date (not an overdate) southeast, being strongest on the 883.

coinguy1 · October 30, 2006 9:53AM

Here is what looks to be some good information oin the 1883/2: here

RichieURich · October 30, 2006 10:42AM

Trust Mark Feld to come up with the best resource, which is Howard Spindel's website. He is a Shield nickel guru, is a member here and posts occasionally. I'm not sure what his ID is.

howards · October 30, 2006 10:54AM

It does look like F-03, which is a repunched 1883 date not an 1883/2 overdate.

Even without looking like F-03, there's just not enough metal there to make this a candidate 1883/2, IMO. You should be able to discern some curves and do a matching overlay study, which would not be possible on this coin.

Mark Feld gave you my website already, so I won't repeat it.

Howard

kranky · October 30, 2006 11:06AM

howards, since you've stopped by I wanted to say your article in Numismatist on the 1867 w/rays proofs was great. Fantastic research. I'm sure it wasn't the first time it's been a factor, but I found it very interesting that the evidence from pop reports really demonstrated the conventional wisdom on the mintage could not be right.

lloydmincy · October 30, 2006 12:51PM

I've always thought the TRUE 1883/2 was the F-08. You can see it so obviously. I believe the coins with the obvious-to-the-naked-eye get the highest premiums, in any year overdate...

Still watching for an F-08...

Coxe · October 30, 2006 1:01PM

Looks like a fully repunched date, most being punched low and far right initially. Looks interesting down north of the denticles too.

howards · October 30, 2006 6:01PM

<< <i>howards, since you've stopped by I wanted to say your article in Numismatist on the 1867 w/rays proofs was great. >>

Thanks for noticing!

There were two major printing problems with the article, unfortunately. The second photo is just a repeat of the first one. The second photo should have looked like the first photo on this web page:

1867JR Proof

Also, the table of auction frequencies was not updated properly. It should have read:

WR NR JR
ANR 1 9 1
B&M 5 8 1
Goldberg 1 3 0
Heritage 6 62 11
Teletrade 0 3 0

Totals 13 85 13

howards · October 30, 2006 6:05PM

<< <i>I've always thought the TRUE 1883/2 was the F-08. You can see it so obviously. I believe the coins with the obvious-to-the-naked-eye get the highest premiums, in any year overdate...
>>

No question that the F-08 is the most desirable 1883/2. But I wouldn't say it's the only true 1883/2. The F-09 is also an obvious 1883/2, and much more available than the F-08. The other (now 4!) 1883/2 varieties are all (IMO) unquestionable 1883/2, but not as dramatic.

See auction records here:

1883/2 Auction Records

1883 Shield Nickel.....possible 3/2.

Comments

Leave a Comment