RWB

Damaged. Also must have been in a jar of earthworms --- it's got the wiggles.

That's a good summary, just in reverse order. Everything starts with diplomatic contact, then to Treasury, etc. One pervasive question was usually the source of metal. This was especially important during WW-II when much foreign coinage was struck using Lend-Lease metal contracts.

If you prefer not to have facts, that's fine. But please don't spread your ignorance or venom beyond your own soggy hole in the swamp. Why not try another message board such as this one: https://forums.collectors.com/categories/u-s-coin-forum. You're certain to receive a warm and vaporous welcome.

Mike Meenderink The topics you complain about are also ones that are of continuing interest to coin collectors. They usually involve some element of mystery or implausibility....much like your attention span.

That's like the goldfish letter I posted....

Coins were not usually rolled in the 19th or early 20th centuries. Your description does not match the most likely scenario. 1940's is more probable.

This was a persistent theme among US Mint correspondence.

Correct. "Chop marks" are simply mutilation, and the Treasury did did not exchange mutilated coins. They paid only bullion value for them.

Describing them as "Proofs" is a relatively recent thing. In older sales (probably 1960's or earlier) they were not called proofs. The same was true with the 1913 V Nickels. They all used to be considered business strike quality as well, though sometimes called proof like. Flynn accounts for most of them as being destroyed in various assayings. It's been awhile since I've reead his book so I can't be more precise. Neither coin mentioned were/are proofs. The modern mis-description is a lie used to hype the price without objective evidence or facts. 3 coins were destroyed during routine assays, leaving 21 "at large." 2 more were claimed to be used for internal SF Mint assay, but there is no record of this actually happening.

Weight, thickness, and diameter would help. The relief is consistent with cheap medals and tokens.

Yep. NGC (and anyone else) is wrong to use an abbreviation so closely associated with 1965-67 for some other purpose. One term; one meaning.

The same term must never have multiple meanings. Highly confusing and subject to abuse. Hence "matte" is reserved for only Lincoln and Buffalo early proof made from sandblasted dies (1909-1916). Any other use requires solid explanations.

There were no "Special Mint Sets" in 2006. Only 1965,1966 and 1967. The coin has damage on the obverse and is likely worth nothing to a collector of modern full step Jeffersons.

Can you tell us where you've been reading this, or where you got the idea this was a legitimate error?

No. Yours are just circulated and tarnished from use. Did someone suggest they were valuable?

PS: This is not a good place to try and "pump" a coin series. Most folks here are immune to that drivel.

Nope. The design was intentional and approved by all who reviewed it, including Sec of Treasury. No one was "mortified." The design was entirely consistent with that used on 3-cent CuNi coins and there had been no difficulties about denomination with those coins. No-cents nickels were released normally, and superseded once Treasury became aware of reeding and plating alterations in Baltimore and NYC. Look at the 3-cent thread started by Sandon for additional info.

My comments are based on fact for each year. Every coin issue will vary somewhat over a year, and with SMS coins in 1966 and 1967 it is evident that different things were tired during production. That is just the way it was and we have no meaningful information on the details because we don't have the Engraving Dept records. Speculations are interesting, but they also have to be within common reason to be of much utility. They also have to agree with facts about equipment, processes, and methodologies.

A very worn Good condition. Worth very little -- maybe, 10 or 25 cents at most. Would the OP want to spend $50 to have this authenticated and graded? I sure hope not!

No. None were "made as proofs" because that is a method of manufacturing that was not used 1965-1967. They might look a little like a proof -- all shiny and such - but they never were, and never will be proof coins. (This is the old "looks like" approach which fails to consider more than a mere superficiality, rather than a full set of visual and physical indicators.)

All of what you describe can be done with an ordinary press and polishing dies. Each year the product improved before returning the medal press proofs in 1968 (still struck once). Each year has to be treated as a separate entity -- without mixing with the other two years. The Mint never considered any of the 1965-1967 pieces as proofs. None were manufactured the same way as proofs. The SMS coins were better than Unc set coins unless someone wanted to hand-select the best 2 or 3 circ coins from each new bag.

Nope. Ordinary toggle presses.

Describe what you see as accurately as possible. Search for similar coins in hobby variety and error guides. (Avoid all Goo-Tube garbage.) Send good photos and your description to hobby specialists for their opinions. If the consensus is that you have discovered a new variety of note, prepare an article for publication and submit to hobby media. The specialists will indicate acceptance by adding it to their on-line materials with you as the discoverer. Send the coin and copies of the specialist decisions to PCGS or NGC for designation as the "discovery coin." (Better to go through an established dealer or one of the specialists.)

Yep. It's the old "right brain-left brain-no common sense" dilemma.

Send both to ANACS. That will give you a reliable opinion on condition, and you can decide if you want to have either in NGC plastic after you have the grade info. Just a thought