1880 Three Cent Nickel

[Buffalo Head]

It sure does have some VERY sharp details. Hard to say but if I had to guess I would also say proof.

[$ilverHawk]

Very interesting thread. Nice info and analysis from Kevin. I don't collect this series, but this thread is why I like being on the NGC forums.

 

Carl

[Kevin J Flynn]

Attached is the 1880 Pr Repunched Date RPD-001

[Kevin J Flynn]

This is the 1881 TCN BS repunched date RPD-001

 

[jackson64]

fantastic thread...

[drew|werd]

Attached is the 1880 Pr Repunched Date RPD-001

 

Kevin,

 

So what does that make of the NGC/PCGS graded business strike coins that have this diagnostic. Are they just misidentified? Would that also conclude that more than 1 set of dies were used to strike the proof coins since some of the proof coins I've looked at don't have this.

 

Sorry for all the questions. I'm in the market for a business strike coin and I may have to rely on auctions or online dealers as my local dealers don't carry a lot of these that I've seen. I may have to rely on online photos and the TPG label on graded coins. Other than that, I'd have to go to the periodic shows such as the B'more show.

 

[CaptHenway]

The attribution of three cent nickels as Proof or not is one reason why coin dealers, and authenticators, drink!

[Kevin J Flynn]

I am going through the 1880 business strikes and proofs on the Heritage auction website, there are many of these in the archives.

 

Herein lies the confusion I believe using the repunching as a identifying diagnostic, both of the BS and Pr have repunching above the middle of the second 8. Many of these photos are blury and do not have the detail at the date to see distinction, but I found one MS that shows the repunching on the second 8 in the same relative location as the Pr, but the right side looks higher.

 

I need to study this a little more to see if I can get a clear visual on the BS.

 

Kevin

 

[drew|werd]

Kevin,

 

I've been looking at the ones on the Stack's site and the more recent ones have decent high-res images.

[Kevin J Flynn]

Below is a 1865 3CN proof obverse and an 1880 3CN PR67 Obv, notice the difference in the strike, the level of detail in the hair, the 1865 shows much more hair detail, especially in the hair below the ear, above the ear, and in most of the curls.

 

I have to look through proofs for different years, but I would hypothesize at this point that the master hub wore down over the years for the 3CN and was not redone, but I need to look at the proofs for each year and check.

 

If this is true, that would make using strike and detail much harder to identify proofs for later years.

 

Kevin

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Below is a 1865 3CN proof obverse and an 1880 3CN PR67 Obv, notice the difference in the strike, the level of detail in the hair, the 1865 shows much more hair detail, especially in the hair below the ear, above the ear, and in most of the curls.

 

I have to look through proofs for different years, but I would hypothesize at this point that the master hub wore down over the years for the 3CN and was not redone, but I need to look at the proofs for each year and check.

 

If this is true, that would make using strike and detail much harder to identify proofs for later years.

 

Kevin

 

Good Morning, Mr. Flynn.

To my eyes, and obviously a partial result of the monitor I am looking at, there are subtle differences that appear to be much more than Master Hub wear. I am sure I am wrong.

[Kevin J Flynn]

Good Morning, Mr. Flynn.

To my eyes, and obviously a partial result of the monitor I am looking at, there are subtle differences that appear to be much more than Master Hub wear. I am sure I am wrong.

 

Hi John,

 

Please call me Kevin, I look over my shoulder for my Dad when I hear Mr. Flynn.

 

Your right, that in theory that it could be the hubbing of the working die that resulted in a weaker strike, either the pressure used, individual performing the task, annealling of the working die, or something else that caused weak design elements for this 1880 proof.

 

To prove the theory of a worn master hub or master die, I need to look at sequential years for 3CN proofs to see if there is progressively less detail in the hair and other design elements. If so, that would greatly increase the probability of this theory up. If the years before have strong detail, then this would lean towards poor tools, process, or workmanship for the 1880 3CN proofs.

 

I like looking through the Heritage Auction sites as it provides many coins to view in one place.

 

Kevin

 

[Kevin J Flynn]

Ok, went through a ton of proof obverse photos for each year for 3CN, two conclusions drawn.

 

1. The master hub or master die wore down in the details of the design elements between 1865 and 1889, and was not reworked. 1865 shows the strongest details, 1889 shows the weakest. I included progressive years to show the differences.

 

2. That within a given year, you have some proofs that display stronger design elements, and some that display weaker design elements. This could be caused by a working die used to long and becoming worn down under higher pressure. Multiple working dies with different levels of strength of the design elements. Some years less than 1,000 proofs struck, for one, over 1,000 proofs struck. Included two 1879 obverse proofs showing different degrees of strength of strike.

 

Kevin

[Kevin J Flynn]

continued from previous post

[drew|werd]

Thank you Kevin for taking the time to investigate this. As CaptHenway has said, this series is pretty complicated and you've proven this with the differing proof strikes.

 

I've also noticed the variations with the ribbon on the reverse. I don't think this is a series that I will ever focus on but it has been fun learning something new.

 

[Kevin J Flynn]

Thank you Kevin for taking the time to investigate this. As CaptHenway has said, this series is pretty complicated and you've proven this with the differing proof strikes.

I've also noticed the variations with the ribbon on the reverse. I don't think this is a series that I will ever focus on but it has been fun learning something new.

 

Hi Drew,

 

Does the repunching on your coin match exactly the repunching on the proof I posted here?

 

If you want, I will be at the Pittsburgh show in two weeks and usually at the Baltimore show in November, would be glad to look at the coin and provide my 'opinion' as to whether it is a proof or not.

 

Thanks

Kevin

 

[drew|werd]

Kevin,

 

The second eight on my coin does have the same repunching as the close-up of your coin. It is the weaker strike that had me thinking it isn't a proof. After taking it out of the holder and seeing the rounded edges, I really thought it was a business strike. But if the RPD is a key diagnostic, then I'll have to concede to it being a proof.

 

How sure are you that business strike coins weren't struck with a proof die? I go back to a few other threads discussing what makes a proof and being able to trace the history of an individual coin. If a coin is struck with a proof die but not in the same manner as the 'regular' proof method, is it still a proof?

 

It's no big deal if my coin is a deemed a proof. I post the above question more in general and not specifically regarding my coin.

 

Thank again,

drew

[drew|werd]

I was planning on sending some coins in to get graded and was going to throw this one in with them next week. But maybe I'll wait until after the Baltimore show. What day(s) are you planning on being there?

[Kevin J Flynn]

Kevin,

The second eight on my coin does have the same repunching as the close-up of your coin. It is the weaker strike that had me thinking it isn't a proof. After taking it out of the holder and seeing the rounded edges, I really thought it was a business strike. But if the RPD is a key diagnostic, then I'll have to concede to it being a proof.

How sure are you that business strike coins weren't struck with a proof die? I go back to a few other threads discussing what makes a proof and being able to trace the history of an individual coin. If a coin is struck with a proof die but not in the same manner as the 'regular' proof method, is it still a proof?

It's no big deal if my coin is a deemed a proof. I post the above question more in general and not specifically regarding my coin.

Thank again,

drew

 

Drew,

 

I believe it always falls back to intent.

 

As an example, when the Mint struck the first 1892 Columbian Half Dollars, the struck the first 100 as proofs, they were struck manually slowly on polished planchets. Then, with the same working dies, they powered the coining press to on and struck coins that were not proofs. The 100 proof coins, plus a few others that were struck as proofs were distributed to the people in charge of the coins at the expo as proofs. This is the exception, not the rule, I have not normally seen the same working die used for proofs that was also used for circulation.

 

To answer you question, if a coin is intended to be struck and distributed as a proof, and the method of manufacture clearly demonstrates those intensions, then it should be classified as a proof.

 

Will have to look around at Baltimore at 1880 business strikes to see if they have the same repunching, or if there is a obverse with slightly different repunching.

 

Kevin

 

[Kevin J Flynn]

I was planning on sending some coins in to get graded and was going to throw this one in with them next week. But maybe I'll wait until after the Baltimore show. What day(s) are you planning on being there?

 

Usually there on Friday, when we get closer, send me an email at kevinjflynn88@yahoo.com, will send you my cell number so we can connect at Baltimore.

 

kevin

[James_OldeTowne]

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.

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

There is a limited number of copies of the book still available. Let me know if you'd like one.