Opinions wanted on this 3 cent nickel

[RGT]

I spotted this on ebay and since it was going cheap, I bid and won. It just arrived today. I don't know much about these coins but I know some here do. This coin is in an old green PCI holder graded MS63 and noted as "Weak Strike".

 

 

 

It's clearly a weak strike, but aren't a lot of these weak?

 

Notice the indented areas near the coronet, in front of the neck and around the bow at the back of her head. They don't look like damage but some sort of strike through. Any other ideas?

 

The reverse obviously has a strong clash but also looks like it was polished to remove it. The missing detail in the bow seems to be more from die polishing than weak strike. It also has several radial die cracks.

 

Would the strike affect the grade? Would the "struck through" areas affect the grade? There are some very light marks on the obverse that are difficult to see. Other than that the coin looks untouched. The luster seems decent for a nickel, with the reverse have more luster than the obverse. Would this be worth cracking out and sending to NGC? What grade would they likely give it?

 

Let me know if you need bigger pictures.

[Hoot]

Hey RGT - I thinnk the best part of the coin is the amazing clash that shows the outline of Liberty clearly on the reverse! As for the weak strike, yes, I think it's weak. The damage to the lines in the III on the reverse look like they are from the clash. The pits on the obverse may have been struck through debris, but they look like plain old planchet flaws to me. Lots of radial flow. A coin with a lot of character!

 

Hoot

[RGT]

Yep, I like coins with character. I know this one has a story to tell if I can figure out how to listen.

 

Those pits could be planchet flaws, but did you notice how the ones behind the bow seem to outline the bow?

 

I forgot to ask about the green tint near the top of the reverse. It doesn't show up as well on the coin. In fact I didn't notice it until I took the pictures. Any chance that could be early PVC? This holder has to be a few years old. How quickly would PVC do any damage?

[Hoot]

Those pits could be planchet flaws, but did you notice how the ones behind the bow seem to outline the bow?

 

Rusty die?

 

Hoot

[RGT]

It seems I gave this group too much credit and Hoot is the only one who knows anything about three cent nickels. I've been out of town a couple of days and I was disappointed that no one else attempted to answer any of my questions.

[Newmismatist]

Those pits could be planchet flaws, but did you notice how the ones behind the bow seem to outline the bow?

 

Rusty die?

 

Hoot

 

A rusty die would have rust "Pits" on the surface of the dies - which would result in raised irregular "dots" on the coins. The marks on the coin are recessed, so I would surmise that this was an improperly prepared planchet together with insufficient die striking pressure ( or the dies misalligned & too far apart). Just my "guess".

[James_OldeTowne]

Randy, first of all, sorry I didn't respond earlier. Don't know how I missed this thread!

 

That's a fascinating coin. The planchet has several natural voids that were present before being struck. Although the dies were obviously clashed, it's also apparent that the obverse die is new relative to the reverse die, because I don't see much obverse evidence of a die clash. Also, the obverse die is not showing much in the way of die cracks. But the reverse has at least two distinct silhouettes, as well as numerous die-cracks. The strike is not so much weak as it is imparted from a heavily polished die - a mint worker clearly was trying to eradicate some of the evidence of die clashing.

 

My understanding is that rusty dies would not have been used to strike three-cent nickels. But there sure is a lot of die erosion present, even on the obverse die, which is the fresher die.

 

I think the grade is right on, and NGC would grade it the same.

 

If anyone EVER finds a PROOF 1865 with clear evidence of clashed dies, PLEASE SELL IT TO ME!

 

James

[RGT]

Thanks for the additional opinions. I think you are probably right that the pits are planchet problems instead of strike through areas.

 

I hadn't thought of the fact that the obverse die is newer than the clashed reverse die. I also hadn't noticed that the reverse was clashed at least twice. I think I see more in the pictures than I do looking at the coin in hand.

 

I don't know about not using rusty dies on three cent nickels but I wouldn't think they would be as likely to be rusted on the first year of issue.

 

Maybe when I'm feeling more lucky I'll send it to NGC. I'm not all that fond of the PCI holder.

 

If anyone EVER finds a PROOF 1865 with clear evidence of clashed dies, PLEASE SELL IT TO ME!

 

James

 

I may be able to polish this one up for you if the price is right.

[James_OldeTowne]

Randy, the reason that rusty dies are not common on the three-cent nickels is that the dies didn't just lie around enough to rust! These coins were minted at a very high rate of speed (for 19th century technology), and in 1865, basically as fast as a new die could be made, it was used. I've actually asked Allan Gifford this same question before, and he indicated to me that rusty dies were not used to strike 3cn's. But the voids in the planchet definitely look like they were there prior to striking - not surprising considering the mint's lack of quality control for this unpopular denomination.

 

James

[bigd5]

I think it's weakly struck with plenty of planchet flaws. I wouldn't think you'd get any higher than an ms/62 grade with those planchet flaws.

 

These generally come weakly struck, and the die polish situation is quite common as well. Areas similar to that of the bow, can also be found on shield nickels quite regularly.

 

The greenish haze may have been some pvc still on the coin as it was being slabbed. Some acetone on a Q-tip should do the trick for that. If not, it's a touch more serious.

 

Interesting coin, without a doubt.