1880 Three Cent Nickel

[drew|werd]

So recently I decided to venture into other coin series. I know most advice is to buy already graded pieces, preferably top-tier, but that's no fun. I learned a lot more with my Morgan series when purchasing ungraded pieces and submitting to NGC. The results were basically a grade of my coin identification abilities which improved after each submission.

 

Anyway, I picked this piece up today believing it is a business strike 3CN. It is labeled as a proof by a third tier TPG. I'm open to grade opinions if you want to throw one in even if this isn't the GTG forum.

 

Sorry for the blurry pics. I'll have to try again once I bust it out of the holder.

 

 

 

[MarkFeld]

What makes you think it's a business strike?

[CaptHenway]

Looks like a typical poorly-made Proof to me.

[Coindude]

The rims are very strong with the raised wire edge. It screams proof to me.

[drew|werd]

What makes you think it's a business strike?

 

I guess believing is the wrong word. It is more like hoping. It doesn't look like a lot of the proofs I've been looking at but maybe it is just a bad example.

[CaptHenway]

Proof three cent nickels in this era are usually indifferently made.

[michael]

looks proof to my minds eye

 

 

[Conder101]

Difficult to tell. Obv looks like a well made business strike, Rev like like a proof.

[Elbesaar]

 

Looks Proof to me as well. The squared reverse rims give it away.

 

 

[drew|werd]

So an article I read said that these (1880 issues) can be difficult to designate. The author said proof dies may have been used to make circulation issues. So how does one definitively tell if that is the case?

[CaptHenway]

Often you have to rely on the rims and the outer edge, and speaking as a former authenticator, sometimes you just can't tell, the quality of the proof three cent nickels was that bad.

[Coindude]

I believe the dies were used for circulation strikes but the proofs received more than one strike from the dies. The square rims on the reverse tell me that it was struck as a proof.

[Conder101]

Looks Proof to me as well. The squared reverse rims give it away.

Of course the obv rims are not squared off.

[Coindude]

Looks Proof to me as well. The squared reverse rims give it away.

Of course the obv rims are not squared off.

In the photos it doesn't look like the entire obverse rims are shown. It appears that they have been cropped. Could it be that a portion of the obverse rim is obscured by the holder?

[drew|werd]

New pictures :

 

 

[Prethen]

Alan Gifford's book did extensive research on virtually all 3CN dies, especially years like 1880. You might want to consult that book. If you're an ANA member you could have them loan it to you.

[drew|werd]

Thanks for the info. Apparently there are a lot of people looking for a more affordable version of that book.

[Kevin J Flynn]

I wrote the Authoritative Reference on Three Cent Nickels with Edward Fletcher. Third Edition in 2009, 160 pages.

 

We included on 1880 Proof Repunched Dates, RPD-001, which is cross referenced to Breen Proof #2.

 

The second 8 shows remnants of a secondary digit above the middle of the second 8. The 8 was punched north with the center above the middle. No repunching is seen on any other digit of the date.

 

On this variety, the date is not absolutely clear, but it looks like extra metal above the middle. In addition, the date lines up with my photo of this variety both vertically between the denticles and base of the neck, and horizontally with the digits over the denticles.

 

There is no clashing, which is most commonly seen on Three cent nickels. The obverse appears to have been struck as a proof, the denticles, letter, design elements all are fully struck. The reverse is also fully struck. The fields on the obverse and reverse show full luster and mirrored fields. The III on the reverse is fully struck. The rim edges look sharp. This is absolutely a proof.

 

Proofs during this time were struck in the medal room. The working dies normally stored in the safe therein. When I was researching this series, I never found a business strike with this repunching, nor did I find or conclude that proof working dies were subsequently used for business strikes. In 1880, we are looking at 3,955 Three cent nickel coins struck, it is believed two working dies at the most. What is abosolutely know is that during this period, proofs were struck as needed throughout the year, from January till late December, so long as there was a demand. We have the delivery dates, so we know they were being struck. The dies used for proofs would not have been used for business strikes, then subsequently used for proofs. During the 1870s and 1880s, proof dies were not also used to strike business strikes. Please show the diagnostics which clearly show there were.

 

Now, there are exceptions, such as the Columbian half dollar, the first die was used to strike proofs, then used for normal business strikes.

 

Kevin

 

[Coindude]

Thanks for the info Kevin, very informative.

[drew|werd]

Kevin,

 

Thank you for your detailed response, it helps out tremendously. I did go through a bunch of auction photographs and if I remember correctly, I did see an example of the RPD on a coin marked MS. Going by what you stated, it is then wrongly designated.

 

[Kevin J Flynn]

Kevin,

Thank you for your detailed response, it helps out tremendously. I did go through a bunch of auction photographs and if I remember correctly, I did see an example of the RPD on a coin marked MS. Going by what you stated, it is then wrongly designated.

 

Drew,

 

Assuming you saw an 1880 TCN certified as a business strike, and the repunching was on the second 8, above the middle. I do not list any 1880 business strike repunched dates in my book, of course that does not mean I missed one, but given that the Mint only struck 16,000 business strikes in 1880, there were most likely from one pair of working dies if they were struck at once, or maybe two at the most. Of course, this is a best guess, given that I believe the average die life was over 100,000 coins for business strikes for the TCN.

 

Its not uncommon to find proof coins for the TCN series certified as business strikes. I once found a 1865, with the quadruple punched date certified as a proof, given the low mintage in 1865 for proofs, and common of business strikes, and a large price difference between, this was a great find.

 

Kevin

[Prethen]

Kevin, the pictures seem to suggest the coin edges are rounded, not flat like a Proof might be. Is there a reason for it looking that way if it's a Proof?

[Kevin J Flynn]

Kevin, the pictures seem to suggest the coin edges are rounded, not flat like a Proof might be. Is there a reason for it looking that way if it's a Proof?

 

Up through 1893, proofs were struck using a Screw Press, as this is a manual operation, it is always possible to have a deviation in striking pressure and the time pressure is applied.

 

There are two primary things to consider on the topic of striking, amount of pressure, and time the working dies are in contact with the planchet. As the working dies press down from the hammer die, the metal is squeezed from the planchet into the recesses of the working dies. The pressure also is pushed outward towards the rim, squeezing the metal towards the collar, then upward towards the edge of the rim. The last point of pressure is the edge of time rim. If a great amount of pressure is used, the more outward pressure towards the rim, and then to the edge. With more time, the metal has more time to be fully squeeze into the design elements and edge of the rim.

 

If deviations occur on the amount of pressure or the time pressure is applied, slight deviations can occur on the end result. If the workman was unexperience, or if someone new, or if later Friday and tired, could cause a minor change in the process.

 

But the true comparison is when viewing the proof coins from that year, it is what to be expected based on the machinery, methods, and planchets at the time. When you look at the Lincoln cent matte proofs for example, 1911 Lincoln cent matte proofs, one of the dies was used to long, the matte surfaces wore down and became more of a satin finish. In addition, from studying proofs from this era, I believe a conclusion can also be drawn that more care in making the proofs was used for the higher denominations as compared to the minor coins. For example, the average Morgan proofs have better attributes and qualities of proofs, than a three cent nickel proof.

 

From looking at the pictures, it is my opinion, that the striking of the design elements and rim are far superior than those for the business strikes and similar to other proofs for 1880 for the Three cent nickel.

 

The term 'knife edge' creates a visual picture of a very sharp and distinct edge, that I believe is a little far reaching for some denominations, especially the minor coinage struck during this period. the edge of the rim can be a little rounded.

 

The true test though is if you laid a business strike on top of, or next to a proof and studied the side. The rim on the proof should appear wider as the metal of the rim of the business strike will have much rounder edges and not be full. I did the same when at the ANS and their proofs and business strikes are all raw. Side by side comparison. In addition, the rim on a proof should have a smoother appearance than a business strike.

 

Kevin

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Prethen]

Very cool knowledge, indeed! Thanks, Kevin.

[Raybo55]

Here's my 1881 and 1889 3 centers that are both BS, how the heck can you differentiate them from proofs, is this series just that wacky?

 

 

 

Thanks as always,

Ray

[Kevin J Flynn]

I may have been wrong on this 1880 being a proof

 

It has a nice strike, but I compared to photos I have of TCN proofs from this time and others times. The hair lines below the ear and above the eyebrows are much more distinct on proofs.

 

Another diagnostic is the denticles. For some years the space between the denticles goes all the way down to the same level as the field, for other year, they seems to be no real space between the denticles. Usually the denticles are squared and consistent, but I have seen this also on well struck business strikes. The denticles for this coin do not appear as fully struck as I might expect, but again as this was a manual process in the screw press, this might be a deviation.

 

I used the repunched date as a key diagnostic, the photo shows a line above the middle of the second 8, where the repunching should be, it is difficult to examine because it is not a close up of the date. What should be seen is the center of the 8 repunched higher, with a v shaped top for the upper loop and a inverted V for the bottom of the loop. I cannot see the upper V shaped top.

 

I was assuming that the proof surfaces were under toning of the reverse, which I have seen belfore, but this was a assumption. Examining the coin is the best way to verify the surface texture, whether mirror like, satin, brilliant, or other.

 

Can you take a close up photo of the date?

 

I will try to upload the 1880 repunched date from the proof when i get home.

 

Kevin

[Kevin J Flynn]

Here's my 1881 and 1889 3 centers that are both BS, how the heck can you differentiate them from proofs, is this series just that wacky?

Thanks as always,Ray

 

Hi Ray,

 

Nice coins. Thanks for asking, you made me pull out some of my TCN proof photos and compare.

 

On the 1881, in the photos, repunching is seen on the second 8 on the right side in the upper and lower loop. It should be also seen on the right side of the first 8 in the lower and upper loop. The date position and repunching look like my RPD-001 which is a business strike.

 

The strike is nice on both of these, but on proofs, it is stronger on the hair details below the ear and above the eyebrows.

 

On both of these, on some of the denticles they do not appear to be fully sqared, especially on the ends. On the top of the reverse of the 81, they are almost mushed.

 

I cannot tell from the photos the edge and rim if they are sharp, but I see what appears to be a cud on the top right of the reverse.

 

I cannot tell surface texture from the photo, they appear satiny, but that is best guess, would need to see the coin or better photos.

 

On the 1889, the proof has a MPD and also repunching below the base, the BS has repunching below the top of the second 8. I cannot tell from the photo if there is repunching.

 

Kevin

 

 

[drew|werd]

I was assuming that the proof surfaces were under toning of the reverse, which I have seen belfore, but this was a assumption. Examining the coin is the best way to verify the surface texture, whether mirror like, satin, brilliant, or other.

 

Can you take a close up photo of the date?

 

I will try to upload the 1880 repunched date from the proof when i get home.

 

Kevin

 

The surfaces are what I consider proof-like. They are reflective but not fully mirrored. I will try to capture that in a photo.

 

I will also attempt to get a close-up of the date. I zoomed in on the current image but it is just too fuzzy.

 

Thanks Kevin!

 

[drew|werd]

200% zoom

 

You may have to click on it to get the full zoom on the photobucket site.

 

Or try this Original

 

I took an angled shot but it doesn't really show what I want it to.

[Kevin J Flynn]

200% zoom

You may have to click on it to get the full zoom on the photobucket site.

I took an angled shot but it doesn't really show what I want it to.

 

Thanks for the updated photo, I see the repunching of the second 8 north above the center, and see the top and bottom. It matches the die used to strike proof coins.

 

Kevin