The 1867 Shield Nickel Thread

[skippy]

Since the 1866 thread seems to have dried up, let's start an 1867 thread.

 

1867 comes in two major circulation varieties - the with rays reverse and the no rays reverse. In proof coins, there is a third reverse which has no rays but a different arrangement of letters and stars.

 

Okay, gurus, in what other years do shield nickels come with multiple reverses?

 

1867 is the home to some of the niftiest shield nickel varieties, including a shield nickel date impressed over a seated dime date:

 

 

 

[IGWT]

Since the 1866 thread seems to have dried up, let's start an 1867 thread.

 

1867 comes in two major circulation varieties - the with rays reverse and the no rays reverse. In proof coins, there is a third reverse which has no rays but a different arrangement of letters and stars.

 

Okay, gurus, in what other years do shield nickels come with multiple reverses?

I'll find one of those small/large dates eventually. There are three different no-rays reverses on business strike Shields. In addition to 1867, two different reverses can be found on coins struck in 1868, '69, and '70 (although, as far as I know, reverse IIa -- the reverse of '67 -- appears on 1870s only as a DDR).

 

The 1867 with-rays subtype accounts for less than 7% of the five-cent pieces struck that year (with the no-stars subtype accounting for 93% or so of the mintage that year). Most type collectors opt for the 1866 as an example of the with-rays subtype. But, although the 1866 is less expensive than the 1867 with rays, perhaps the difference in price should be even greater given the relative surviving populations. That is, the 1867 with rays might be a better "value" even though it is more expensive than the 1866.

 

Most collectors are familiar with the difficulties that the Mint experienced in striking Shield Nickels, and that the rays were removed to improve striking characteristics and to prolong die life, which was a woefully low 15,000-20.000 strikes per die. Consequently, it's difficult to find an attractive 1867 5c with rays, one with good luster, some eye appeal, and an acceptable strike. I'll start out by posting a non-variety 1867 with rays and save a couple of the varieties for later.

 

[IGWT]

Hmmm. Maybe Shield Nickels aren't quite as popular as we think they are, Howard. Here's a wicked nice RPD with the underlying digits far west. I have been taking new pictures of my coins, but haven't done the close-ups yet. Can you post one of the date for this variety?

 

 

 

[MikeInFL]

I wish I had an example to show, but alas, I chose the "cheaper" 1866 for my typeset.

 

I'll be able to participate again in 1869.

 

Have fun...Mike

[IGWT]

One of my weaknesses are "two-fers" in the Shield 5c series. "Two-fers" are coins that bear two different die characteristics that would each qualify the coin as a die variety independent of the other. Coins that were struck with a doubled die that bears a repunched date are "two-fers." Remember that a die is doubled as a result of multiple, offset pressings from the hub. All the working dies in the Shield 5c series were date punched by hand after they were hubbed. So, a doubled date -- what we refer to as a repunched date -- should not be mistaken for a doubled die. The die doubling and the repunched date on a "two-fer" are necessarily the result of two different events at separate stages of the die production process.

 

Here are two examples of two-fers from 1867, one with the with-rays reverse, and one without rays. Each example has a nice spread in both the doubling and the repunching. Again, I need to take close-up shots to show the varieties more clearly, and maybe Howard can lend a hand if he has pictures to share. If not, I'll take the pictures and add them later. You'll see the doubling most clearly at the annulet (the circle below the cross) and the cross itself.

 

 

[rons]

You are making me go break out my shields to take a closer look at them. I know I have nothing in that high a grade but the possibilities of so many different types is fascinating

[IGWT]

You are making me go break out my shields to take a closer look at them. I know I have nothing in that high a grade but the possibilities of so many different types is fascinating

 

Yes! Go take a look. We are still discovering new varieties. There are many die varieties in the series, but you'll find that each particular variety is scarce to rare. Be sure to post pictures of any 1867s that you have even if they're not varieties.

[Dwaine]

What books do you recommend about shield nickels? I have a few for my type set and proof set but haven't thought about collecting them as a series.

[Just Bob]

Some great looking coins here! (thumbs u

[skippy]

What books do you recommend about shield nickels? I have a few for my type set and proof set but haven't thought about collecting them as a series.

 

If you are looking to collect mostly a date set, I would recommend the Peters & Mohon Complete Guide to Shield and Liberty Nickels.

 

If you want to get into shield nickel varieties, then Ed Fletcher's The Shield Five Cent Series is the best *book* out there. I'm partial to the computerized variety guide that I developed called SNV:

 

SNV

 

All three references are useful if you really get into shield nickels as they contain non-overlapping information.

 

 

[skippy]

Lou requested closeup photos of some varieties. Here's S2-7000, a great "twofer":

 

 

 

 

[skippy]

Here's S1-7000, another great twofer:

 

 

 

 

Note the strong strike doubling east on all 4 digits!

[skippy]

Finally, here's S2-3002 an RPD that is strong both south and east:

 

[skippy]

I'll be able to participate again in 1869.

 

I think you'll have a long wait, Mike.

[skippy]

One of my weaknesses are "two-fers" in the Shield 5c series. "Two-fers" are coins that bear two different qualities that would each qualify the coin as a die variety independent of the other. Coins that were struck with a doubled die that bears a repunched date are "two-fers." Remember that a die is doubled as a result of multiple, offset pressings from the hub. All the working dies in the Shield 5c series were date punched by hand after they were hubbed. So, a doubled date -- what we refer to as a repunched date -- should not be mistaken for a doubled die. The die doubling and the repunched date on a "two-fer" are necessarily the result of two different events at separate stages of the die production process.

 

I really like twofers as well. But Lou is being generous when he calls a DDO and an RPD the result of two separate events. It's really two separate SCREW-UPS by the mint!

[skippy]

Gack - Lou wanted S1-3002, not S2-3002. Here it is:

 

[rrantique]

(thumbs u

[IGWT]

Thanks for posting the close-ups, Howard. (thumbs u Irvin, your photo is just a bit too blurry for me to see exactly what I'm looking at. It looks like it could be either strike doubling or repunching (or maybe both). What do you see?

 

Howard wrote an article a while ago in Numismatist on a special variety of 1867 no-rays proofs. (I can't remember the date of the issue, and I don't have it with me.) Howard's piece expounded initial research and findings by John Dannreuther and Sunnywood (his handle on the PCGS Boards). The 1867 proof pictured below was struck with the prototype reverse die used on transitional pattern J-507 (also used on J-573). Bob Julian's research shows that the mint produced 25 five-cent proofs delivered in early February 1867, and it has long been thought that the notation referred to coins struck with the with-rays reverse (which accounts for the astronomical prices of the '67 w/ rays proofs). It's pretty clear now that the Mint record refers to no-rays proofs struck with the prototype reverse. The market has a long way to go before it catches up to the updated research.

 

Here's an example of the 1867 5c proof with prototype reverse (along with the J-507). I've also included an 1867 no-rays regular issue so that you can compare the reverses and see the difference in the relative positions of the stars and letters, as well as the different style 5. (I don't have a common '67 no-rays proof to post for comparison )

 

 

 

 

[rrantique]

"Thanks for posting the close-ups, Howard. Irvin, your photo is just a bit too blurry for me to see exactly what I'm looking at. It looks like it could be either strike doubling or repunching (or maybe both). What do you see?"

 

Sorry for the blurred photo Lou, I see no evidence of strike doubling or a re punch. Not a very good example of for the coin. I am having a fit trying to photo anything lately, will try some different lighting. (thumbs u

 

 

[AegisIII]

On the book subject, which one would you say is the best with regards to contemporary counterfeit shield nickels?

[skippy]

On the book subject, which one would you say is the best with regards to contemporary counterfeit shield nickels?

 

For identifying the various known dies according to a catalog number, both Fletcher and SNV contain contemporary counterfeit shield nickel photos. Each reference contains some counterfeits that the other lacks, so you may need both.

 

If you want a history of counterfeiters and their products, there is a little bit of this in Bowers' Guide to Shield and Liberty Nickels, but I know of no extensive source.

[skippy]

Howard wrote an article a while ago in Numismatist on a special variety of 1867 no-rays proofs.

 

The article can be found here:

 

1867 Proof Shield Nickels

[IGWT]

The year 1867 is packed full of interesting things for nickel afficionados to learn, to ponder, and to collect. When Congress enacted the legislation authorizing the production of the Cu/Ni 5c piece beginning in 1866, it was intended in large part to redeem the fractional currency that was issued during the Civil War. Both Congress and the Mint originally thought that use of a base metal for subsidiary coinage was a temporary measure, and many regarded base-metal coinage as mere "tokens" due to the composition of the coins. Longacre, the Chief Engraver of the Mint who designed the Shield 5c, favored return to use of metal with intrinsic value.

 

In 1867, Longacre advocated the use of aluminum for the 5c series (which was a metal with high intrinsic value at the time), and he prepared a pattern piece to help make his argument. He describes the piece and its purpose in correspondence to Secretary McCulloch through Director Linderman:

 

" . . . . I know not how far it may coincide with the present or future policy of the Government -- but it has appeared to me as a desideratum, that the portion of the circulating medium -- designated as fractional currency should possess an instrinsic value in the material of which it is composed, which it has not now.

 

If this view should be entertained now, or hereafter: it is important to find or suggest a material that would meet the exigency. The use of aluminum for the purposes of coinage, was suggested by its peculiar qualities as I became acquainted with them: especially when I ascertained that it was employed successfully in Paris for the purpose of striking medals.

 

. . . . These considerations have induced me to prepare for the purpose from dies designed and engraved by myself -- the accompanying specimens[/b], corresponding in size with the coin above mentioned [the Half Eagle], in order to exhibit fully and fairly under the usual process of coining, the fitness of the metal for the requisite operations. . . ."

 

Letter from J. Longacre to H. McCulloch (June 12, 1867), quoted in D. Taxay, The U.S. Mint and Coinage at 245-46 (1966) (emphasis added). Of course, the nickel advocates had their way, and the Mint continued production of the Shield 5c in copper-nickel alloy (75:25) through 1883. In fact, the composition of the nickel hasn't changed (aside from the War Nickels of 1942-45) to the present date, 142 years later. Longacre might be pleased to know that the intrinsic value of the five-cent piece -- at long last -- actually exceeds its face value.

 

The aluminum piece that comes from "dies designed and engraved by [Longacre] [him]self," J-561, is not rare as far as patterns go, but it is far and away my favorite pattern for many reasons, including the elegance of the design indisputably created by Longacre's own hand and its place in numismatic history.

 

 

Longacre also prepared at least two hub trials (each is unique) for the design. The hub trial takes us one step closer to Longacre than the J-561 takes us. It's hard to tell from the photo, but the design elements are incuse as well as reversed (like you would expect to see on a die). This piece is a "snapshot" of one stage in Longacre's creative process for the 561. You'll see on the hub trial, for example, that the word UNION is not yet punched into the headdress, a significant addition reminding us that the Civil War had just ended. You'll also note that Longacre modified the design slightly by repunching the stars before striking the 561, and you can see scribe lines (circular, horizontal, and vertical) used to position the letters.

 

 

[rrantique]

What a beautiful Judd Lou. Thanks for showing.

[Just Bob]

Interesting and educational post, and the pattern and hub trial are extraordinary! Well done!

[skippy]

I really wish the reverse of J-561 had made it into production. Great post, Lou!

 

No matter how hard I try, I can't see the hub trial incuse even though I know it has to be.

[Just Bob]

 

No matter how hard I try, I can't see the hub trial incuse even though I know it has to be.

 

That illusion has a name, though I can't think of what it is right now.

Try This

[IGWT]

 

No matter how hard I try, I can't see the hub trial incuse even though I know it has to be.

 

That illusion has a name, though I can't think of what it is right now.

Try This

That is so cool And it certainly explains the difficulty in seeing the hub trial as incuse in the photo.

[skippy]

 

No matter how hard I try, I can't see the hub trial incuse even though I know it has to be.

 

That illusion has a name, though I can't think of what it is right now.

Try This

 

That mask is a fun illusion. It's very hard to see past it too.

 

I frequently encounter this sort of optical illusion with close-up photos of coin dates as well.

 

[Conder101]

Usually if you have a problem on extreme close up with a reversal of depth perception you can correct it by turning the image upside down. That doesn't work with the hub trial image though.