By popular request: the first Shield Nickel date thread - 1866

[skippy]

The idea here is that we will wander through the years of shield nickel production (there are only 18 of them), and post some hopefully interesting facts and/or questions about each year. When we dry up on one year, we can move on to the next.

 

The first year is, of course, 1866. (Although there is a pattern dated 1865 it's probably backdated.)

 

The issuance of shield nickels was authorized by Congress after being pressured by Joseph Wharton (who is still remembered today as the founder of the Wharton School of Business and of Swarthmore College). Wharton wanted Congress to authorize coinage of base metal because he owned (surprise!) a nickel mine.

 

Shield nickel planchets are 75% copper and 25% nickel (same composition as today), but the diameter of shield nickels is slightly less than a modern nickel. These planchets were very hard and difficult for the mint to strike, and the smaller diameter exacerbated the problem. Dies broke very quickly and had to be replaced in haste, causing the many shield nickel varieties we see today.

 

Curiously, three of the most dramatic shield nickel repunched dates all occur in 1866, and when you look at the coin the date looks like 11886666. This does not happen in any other year, although there are some dramatic repunchings that we will have to save for future threads.

 

Okay, that's enough from me. Post something interesting or a question about 1866 shield nickels.

[MTHead-migration]

Weren't these called "tombstone" or "headstone" nickels because some felt the design looked like an ornate grave marker?

[jesbroken]

Howard,

I believe that while there may have been later 1865 patterns struck, I think that the first was struck pre 1866. Many believe the same and there is many items to be considered proof of this. Attached is an article on U.S.Patterns web site which gives some verification to this. It is certainly interesting the extent many have went to make their cases. Researching old letters, bills and statements is kind of like modern day forensics.

 

[IGWT]

I'm pretty well convinced that J-416 & -17 (struck in copper) are fantasy pieces, but still very desirable.

 

The year 1866 naturally introduces us to the first set of regular-issue hub pairings for the series: Obverse Hub A and Reverse Hub I (the 1866 proof and some pattern pieces were struck from a die made with Reverse Hub Ip). Obverse Hub A lacked an outer engraved leaf on the second laurel cluster on the right of the shield. The Mint hand engraved the fourth leaf on almost all working dies . . . but a few slipped through, giving us the missing leaf varieties. There are missing leaf varieties for each year that Obverse A was used, 1866 through the beginning of 1869. Here's an example of one from 1866:

 

[skippy]

Weren't these called "tombstone" or "headstone" nickels because some felt the design looked like an ornate grave marker?

 

Yes. The exact quote is the first one on this webpage:

 

Shield Nickel Quotes

 

[skippy]

Howard,

I believe that while there may have been later 1865 patterns struck, I think that the first was struck pre 1866.

 

The main reason that I believe that the 1865-dated coins are backdated is because of the timeline:

 

5/10/1866: Senator Sherman introduces legislation in Congress to authorize the new 5c piece (at the behest of Wharton)

5/16/1866: Legislation for the new 5c piece approved

5/28/1866: 4 patterns that were proposals for the new 5c coin were delivered by Mint Director Pollock to Treasury Secretary McCulloch.

6/11/1866: Production starts

 

From the timeline, it really looks to me like Pollock produced the patterns in response to the enabling legislation, and that all shield nickel patterns were produced 1866 or later.

 

Since the mint used a 4 digit punch for the date, it is quite possible that they did not have an 1866-dated punch handy when producing the patterns and that they grabbed an available 1865-dated punch. It's also possible that the 1865-dated coins were produced much later as delicacies for collectors - a common practice at the time. Possibly both of these occurrence happened, and the earlier one is uspatterns.com's originals and the latter the restrikes. But I don't find anything in the uspatterns.com documentation that convinces me that the 1865-dated coins were made in 1865.

 

The 1865-dated coins with the no rays reverse are clearly backdated fantasies, as that reverse was not available until considerably later, and it also shows similar broken letters to 1870 proofs. That 1865-dated no rays reverse coins are obvious backdates is proof that backdated coins were made, and calls into question the authenticity of the date on the 1865 with rays patterns.

 

[skippy]

Follow-up to my immediately preceding post:

 

uspatterns.com even has the smoking gun that says 1865-dated coins could not have been made in 1865:

 

----

Additional Note: Dave Bowers has come across a May 19, 1866 bill which shows the Mint paying a Mr. S. E. Adamson $2 for a large #5 punch. If this punch is indeed for the 5 used on the "Stars and Bars" reverse, then these pieces could not have been struck earlier than mid-1866 thus if any of these are "originals" then they were struck from an unused 1865 obverse die in 1866.

----

 

The 5/19/1866 date falls neatly into the timeline I set out above - immediately after legislative approval.

 

[skippy]

Discuss: Are 1866 proofs overpriced and overrated?

 

They seem to appear far more often than the typically quoted mintage of "around 125" would allow.

 

[IGWT]

There were several styles of 5s used on the reverses of various pattern pieces dated 1866 (even beyond the 4 patterns described in the May 1866 letter from Mint Director Pollock to Treasury Secretary McCulloch); and, largely for that reason, the bill of sale for a single punch found by QDB doesn't carry that much weight for me. How do we know that the Mint didn't have the adopted-style punch on hand in 1865 and that the bill of sale doesn't refer to a different style punch used on later patterns? The bill of sale fits, but it's far from conclusive.

 

In addition to the other facts that you mention, we should also remember that the hub used to produce the obverse die for J-416 & -17 wasn't used until after 1866. Not only is the hub design a significant indicator, but the pattern was struck with heavily relapped die that shows evidence of earlier use for striking either proof or regular issue coinage.

[lkenefic]

...well...here's what they look like when they get a bit corroded...

 

 

[MikeInFL]

Here's mine:

 

[skippy]

How do we know that the Mint didn't have the adopted-style punch on hand in 1865 and that the bill of sale doesn't refer to a different style punch used on later patterns?

 

Why would you think that the mint had a punch for a large 5 on hand in 1865? There weren't any earlier designs that might have incorporated it.

 

Another interesting point is that all of the patterns with the center dots on the reverse (including the 1867 IIo proof) show an angled cut at the top left of the big 5 that does not appear on any production coins. It's my guess that the 5 with the cut was hand-engraved, and the punch that was ordered used the hand-engraved 5 as a model. If the 5 with the cut had been punched and not hand-engraved, there would have been no reason to order another punch.

 

While it is difficult to be positive from the photo on uspatterns.com, the reverse of J417 (an 1865-dated pattern) looks like it does NOT use the big 5 with the cut, strengthening the argument that it was a later issue.

 

Update: I found a J417 on Heritage. It clearly does not have the cut 5 (in fact, it looks to have a DDR normal 5).

 

I think all of the evidence strongly points to the 1865 patterns being backdated.

[skippy]

Here's a look at two of the three terrific RPDs from 1866:

 

 

[gpnyc]

Here's my gem cameo proof 1866. A couple of interesting points to note: Quite a few of the first year proofs presented with planchet problems and this one is no different - note the planchet void on the reverse. Additionally, as you can see in the pics both the obverse and reverse of the proof versions have a center dot, the result of a compass which was used to lay out the master hub.

 

[IGWT]

Why would you think that the mint had a punch for a large 5 on hand in 1865?

I said that it remains a possibility, not that I think it was so, and my principal point is that I find the other evidence of antedating more persuasive. Not "all of the evidence strongly points to the 1865 patterns being backdated" because, of course, we have to consider the date of the pattern itself. Also, if you look at the timeline in your earlier post, you might agree with me that 12 days (from the enactment of the enabling legislation to the delivery of patterns to Hugh McCulloch) was not nearly enough time for Longacre to design four patterns (and possibly more if J-486, for example, was also part of the effort), engrave the dies, and strike the coins for presentation. Wharton's lobbying predated 1866, and it's not outside the realm of possibility that the Mint began playing with designs for the new 5c piece when the production of the nickel 3c began in 1865. Do I think so? No; but all this information is necessarily part of our deliberations.

 

I look at it this way: the Mint presumptively struck a coin in the year of coin's date, but clear evidence to the contrary can overcome that presumption. We're in agreement that the evidence of antedating, as set forth in the earlier posts, is strong enough to overcome the presumption that J-416 was struck in 1865.

 

While it is difficult to be positive from the photo on uspatterns.com, the reverse of J417 (an 1865-dated pattern) looks like it does NOT use the big 5 with the cut, strengthening the argument that it was a later issue.

Both J-416 and -417 with center dot reverse (I've never examined one of the 416s w/out center dot, so I don't know for sure about those) were struck with a die produced from hub Ip, the same as used for regular 1866 proofs. This die (or at least a different die produced from the same hub) was also used for J-473, which was almost certainly the second pattern described in Pollock's letter to McColloch. I'm not sure how the "big 5 with the cut" (reverse IIo) works into your reasoning. That style 5, whether punched or engraved, first appears on J-507 later in 1866 (the no-rays transitional pattern). I don't see how the lack of this 5 on J-416 can signify that J-416 was struck later instead of earlier.

 

We're probably getting a little too esoteric, and I'm glad that you posted close-ups of the wild RPDs for everyone to enjoy. Here's a wider view of the coin with the second of the RPDs that you posted. You can see some of the wicked die polishing in this picture. For those who don't know, the attribution numbers that appear in my pictures are Shield Nickel Viewer numbers, an attribution system that Howard developed.

 

 

And, to keep things rolling, here's a picture of another 1866 RPD with a major clash (sorry I don't have a close-up of the date . . . either Howard or Mozin probably has one).

 

[jesbroken]

A few months back I posted an FYI regarding the creation of the Franklin half dollar and how its design came to be. If you remember, Director Nellie Tayloe Ross, liked an idea put forth and went on without approval, even to the point of having drawings and carvings made up-the coin was never made but later some of the designs were used to make the Frankie. So just because we have dates of congressional authorization and purchases of the Mint, still does not remove the possibility of things occurring even six months previous to such events. By the way, I do not mean to infer that the 1865 was issued previous to 1866 but just the possibility that it might. JMO

[IGWT]

So folks can see the J-416 and J-507 (I borrowed the J-416 image from Heritage). The J-507 was (by my thinking, anyhow) struck in 1866 and constitutes a true transitional pattern for the no-rays reverse. We can talk about the no-rays proofs of 1867 with this reverse when we start the next thread.

 

 

[bsshog40]

Man I'd like to have those IGWT. Those are purty!!!

[skippy]

Sorry, I've been offline for a couple days. Sliced a finger open and had difficulty typing. I'm expected to survive, though.

 

I'm not sure how the "big 5 with the cut" (reverse IIo) works into your reasoning. That style 5, whether punched or engraved, first appears on J-507 later in 1866 (the no-rays transitional pattern). I don't see how the lack of this 5 on J-416 can signify that J-416 was struck later instead of earlier.

 

Here's how I fit the big 5 with the cut in.

 

None of the production coins (starting in 1866) show a cut in the big 5. I believe that the big 5 for all production coins come from the same punch (and probably the one for which QDB found the receipt).

 

I think that coins that show a cut 5 were produced by hand-engraving the 5, not by a punch. This hand engraving may have been done on a galvano, accounting for why the cut 5 is prevalent across several coins.

 

When a coin shows the non-cut 5, I believe it came after the earliest production 1866's because it uses the same punch for the reverse. This is why I think the pattern coins with non-cut 5s are definitely antedated.

 

I have no proof, of course, but this is the scenario that makes the most sense to me.

 

[IGWT]

Here's how I fit the big 5 with the cut in.

 

None of the production coins (starting in 1866) show a cut in the big 5. I believe that the big 5 for all production coins come from the same punch (and probably the one for which QDB found the receipt).

 

I think that coins that show a cut 5 were produced by hand-engraving the 5, not by a punch. This hand engraving may have been done on a galvano, accounting for why the cut 5 is prevalent across several coins.

 

When a coin shows the non-cut 5, I believe it came after the earliest production 1866's because it uses the same punch for the reverse. This is why I think the pattern coins with non-cut 5s are definitely antedated.

 

I have no proof, of course, but this is the scenario that makes the most sense to me.

 

My head is too dense for your point to penetrate. I still don't understand how the appearance of the cut-5 reverse on J-507 later in 1866 (and then on some '67 proofs) leads to the conclusion that the non-cut 5 could not have been used in 1865. (I'll grant you that it's a mystery why the cut 5 was used when the non-cut 5 punch was indisputedly on hand). Now, if the cut 5 appeared on J-416, that would constitute evidence of antedating.

 

I hope that you're healing! No doubt a nasty slice from a slab shard.

[skippy]

Lou, I doubt seriously that your head is too dense. :-)

 

J-416 and J-417 are the same die pair - just different metals.

 

J-416/7 do NOT show the cut 5 reverse.

 

The first production coins in 1866 (and all subsequent production coins) do NOT show the cut 5 reverse. All coins produced after this point do NOT show the cut 5 reverse - see even J-418, an 1865-dated coin that provably (due to reverse type) could not have been struck before 1869. I believe that all of these coins were created using the big 5 punch whose sales receipt was discovered by QDB. All coins that we are sure were produced after the date of the sales receipt show the same uncut 5.

 

J-416/7 must therefore postdate the sales receipt for the big 5, as it shows the same uncut 5 of the production coins. Furthermore, the J-417 I found on Heritage shows what appears to be a DDR on the 5, indicating the 5 was punched twice - that's punched, not hand-engraved!

 

Admittedly this all hangs on the QDB receipt date. But it hangs together remarkably well timewise, I think. Additionally, we have prooof in the 1865 no-rays pattern that the mint antedated some delicacies (and apparently this was a common practice at that time), so all non-production coins of the era should have their dates viewed with some skepticism.

 

 

 

[IGWT]

Admittedly this all hangs on the QDB receipt date.

 

I didn't realize that the receipt was part of this argument. Thanks! Are you going to post any more pictures?

[skippy]

Something in particular you want a photo of?

 

The best (IMO) 1866 varieties have already been posted - except perhaps for a DDO, but even the strongest DDO for 1866 isn't a major one by shield nickel standards.

 

[IGWT]

Here's a close-ups of the repunched dates of S1-3007 that I posted earlier in the thread (Howard already posted a close-up of S1-3000).

 

 

And here's another five-cent pattern from 1866, J-481.

 

[bsshog40]

Nice close-up there IGWT, and I like that 66'.

[Oldtrader3]

Here is mine, purchased from Tom B. Thanks, Tom.

[MikeKing]

damn, I love these coins!

[Just Bob]

And this is supposed to be "the ugliest of all known coins??!! "a curiously ugly device??!!"

 

I think this design is, along with the double eagle, one of Longacre's best - at least as far as production coins go. (Some of his patterns were beautiful, as well)

 

 

 

(original link posted by Howard/Skippy - re-posted for those who might have missed it )

[bsshog40]

Nice one there OT3!!!

[Mozin]

Some nasty die breaks,