Lem E

So here is my question. If the mint packaging has the potential to tone these coins in an unattractive way, should they be removed from the packaging to preserve the coins natural state? I have seen both the 94 and the 97 nickels with the unattractive yellowish to sometimes brown toning. These satin finish coins don’t seem to respond well to this type of toning. It may be the pics but it kind of looks like these two coins are starting to tone on the reverse? I’m not saying they should be sent to a TPG for grading but do you just leave them in the mint packaging and hope for the best? For the record, I generally agree most things in OGP should be left in there. 

So here is the reveal. I think everyone knew where this was going. This is in fact the much more common 39S Rev of 38 in a mislabeled holder. I have seen this time and time again with the attribution of both sets of steps being incorrect. I don’t believe this is a mechanical error on the label. It seems that the TPGs struggle with this. I am not trying to bash on the TPGs. The moral of the story is don’t blindly follow what is on the label. Check the coin and make sure it is what it is supposed to be. Everyone makes mistakes. This will of course be returned to the seller and my hunt for this coin will continue. I thank all the members who responded to this post.

So here is the reveal. I think everyone knew where this was going. This is in fact the much more common 39S Rev of 38 in a mislabeled holder. I have seen this time and time again with the attribution of both sets of steps being incorrect. I don’t believe this is a mechanical error on the label. It seems that the TPGs struggle with this. I am not trying to bash on the TPGs. The moral of the story is don’t blindly follow what is on the label. Check the coin and make sure it is what it is supposed to be. Everyone makes mistakes. This will of course be returned to the seller and my hunt for this coin will continue. I thank all the members who responded to this post.

I picked up this 47 D/D piece recently. This is the only RPM that NGC recognizes listed as VP-001. CONECA lists this as RPM-001. You can see the first impression peeking out of the bottom of the second punch with the second being punched slightly counterclockwise. According to Variety Vista there are 2 more RPMs listed for the Denver pieces from 1947. 

According to the various variety sites this is also listed as a DDR. I am certainly no variety expert by any means and I have really looked this coin over. I did find the one die marker they show which is this very small die gouge. The rest of it I just don’t see. Sometimes I wonder how they come up with some of these. Guess that’s why I’m not much on this doubled die stuff. 

Here are a few links.
http://www.varietyvista.com/05 JN RPMs/1947DRPM001.htm
https://www2.briansvarietycoins.com/listings/view/1595
https://www.conecaonline.info/jefferson-nickel/jefferson-nickel-1947-d-rpm-001-denver/
 

Darn! I was pretty busy today and just saw this so I couldn't get my "two cents" in on this nickel. 

So here is my question. If the mint packaging has the potential to tone these coins in an unattractive way, should they be removed from the packaging to preserve the coins natural state? I have seen both the 94 and the 97 nickels with the unattractive yellowish to sometimes brown toning. These satin finish coins don’t seem to respond well to this type of toning. It may be the pics but it kind of looks like these two coins are starting to tone on the reverse? I’m not saying they should be sent to a TPG for grading but do you just leave them in the mint packaging and hope for the best? For the record, I generally agree most things in OGP should be left in there. 

So here is the reveal. I think everyone knew where this was going. This is in fact the much more common 39S Rev of 38 in a mislabeled holder. I have seen this time and time again with the attribution of both sets of steps being incorrect. I don’t believe this is a mechanical error on the label. It seems that the TPGs struggle with this. I am not trying to bash on the TPGs. The moral of the story is don’t blindly follow what is on the label. Check the coin and make sure it is what it is supposed to be. Everyone makes mistakes. This will of course be returned to the seller and my hunt for this coin will continue. I thank all the members who responded to this post.

So here is the reveal. I think everyone knew where this was going. This is in fact the much more common 39S Rev of 38 in a mislabeled holder. I have seen this time and time again with the attribution of both sets of steps being incorrect. I don’t believe this is a mechanical error on the label. It seems that the TPGs struggle with this. I am not trying to bash on the TPGs. The moral of the story is don’t blindly follow what is on the label. Check the coin and make sure it is what it is supposed to be. Everyone makes mistakes. This will of course be returned to the seller and my hunt for this coin will continue. I thank all the members who responded to this post.

All 3 mints used both reverses on the 39 coins.

I picked up this 47 D/D piece recently. This is the only RPM that NGC recognizes listed as VP-001. CONECA lists this as RPM-001. You can see the first impression peeking out of the bottom of the second punch with the second being punched slightly counterclockwise. According to Variety Vista there are 2 more RPMs listed for the Denver pieces from 1947. 

According to the various variety sites this is also listed as a DDR. I am certainly no variety expert by any means and I have really looked this coin over. I did find the one die marker they show which is this very small die gouge. The rest of it I just don’t see. Sometimes I wonder how they come up with some of these. Guess that’s why I’m not much on this doubled die stuff. 

Here are a few links.
http://www.varietyvista.com/05 JN RPMs/1947DRPM001.htm
https://www2.briansvarietycoins.com/listings/view/1595
https://www.conecaonline.info/jefferson-nickel/jefferson-nickel-1947-d-rpm-001-denver/
 

So here is my question. If the mint packaging has the potential to tone these coins in an unattractive way, should they be removed from the packaging to preserve the coins natural state? I have seen both the 94 and the 97 nickels with the unattractive yellowish to sometimes brown toning. These satin finish coins don’t seem to respond well to this type of toning. It may be the pics but it kind of looks like these two coins are starting to tone on the reverse? I’m not saying they should be sent to a TPG for grading but do you just leave them in the mint packaging and hope for the best? For the record, I generally agree most things in OGP should be left in there. 

So here is the reveal. I think everyone knew where this was going. This is in fact the much more common 39S Rev of 38 in a mislabeled holder. I have seen this time and time again with the attribution of both sets of steps being incorrect. I don’t believe this is a mechanical error on the label. It seems that the TPGs struggle with this. I am not trying to bash on the TPGs. The moral of the story is don’t blindly follow what is on the label. Check the coin and make sure it is what it is supposed to be. Everyone makes mistakes. This will of course be returned to the seller and my hunt for this coin will continue. I thank all the members who responded to this post.

So here is the reveal. I think everyone knew where this was going. This is in fact the much more common 39S Rev of 38 in a mislabeled holder. I have seen this time and time again with the attribution of both sets of steps being incorrect. I don’t believe this is a mechanical error on the label. It seems that the TPGs struggle with this. I am not trying to bash on the TPGs. The moral of the story is don’t blindly follow what is on the label. Check the coin and make sure it is what it is supposed to be. Everyone makes mistakes. This will of course be returned to the seller and my hunt for this coin will continue. I thank all the members who responded to this post.

This little gal arrived just before the bell rang and this year's registry closed for judging.   I was very happy to add this coin as it brought my New Orleans Type set to 50% complete which is a major milestone for that set for me.    The remaining coins will be very tough to acquire as most are incredibly expensive, and several are difficult to find attractive examples of.   These photos are from the dealer that I bought this coin from.