4 million dollar nickel 2 2

[Hoghead515]

I could sure use one of these in my collection. 

Edited November 26, 2021 by Hoghead515

[numisport]

I think you would be more satisfied with a legitimate proof Liberty Nickel. You could purchase a beautiful cameo proof Liberty Nickel that knock your socks off for about 1/2000th of the price 

[Mohawk]

No doubt, Hog! But if I had it, I'd definitely sell it....I have to be honest.  I'm not very interested in U.S. Coins, but I could get a TON of things I'm actually interested in with $4 Million.

[zadok]

On 11/11/2021 at 12:05 PM, numisport said:

I think you would be more satisfied with a legitimate proof Liberty Nickel. You could purchase a beautiful cameo proof Liberty Nickel that knock your socks off for about 1/2000th of the price 

...yea but wouldnt have the grass skirt......

[MarkFeld]

"nickel"

[Hoghead515]

On 11/11/2021 at 2:54 PM, MarkFeld said:

"nickel"

Sorry bout that my friend. I mis spell that everytime. 

[Hoghead515]

If I were to have one it would no doubt be sold also. I could do a whole lot with $4,000,000.  

[Lem E]

If I had that money, I would probably just buy more nickels…and a Ferrari.  

[Coinbuf]

I used to think that coins like this would be cool to own, as I've moved further into my collecting ages I've realized that coins like this are really just trophy coins for the mega rich.   I do not wish to imply that those who have owned or do own one do not enjoy them, rather that at some level it is about putting your name on the ownership history.   There are a few coins that fit into this ego building arena besides just these five.    As such even if I had the funds I really doubt that I would ever really want to own one now, probably never find out I guess.     It is awesome that these types of coins do get displayed rather regularly so that us mere mortals can at least be able to see one.

Edited November 11, 2021 by Coinbuf

[Mohawk]

On 11/11/2021 at 5:40 PM, Coinbuf said:

I used to think that coins like this would be cool to own, as I've moved further into my collecting ages I've realized that coins like this are really just trophy coins for the mega rich.   I do not wish to imply that those who have owned or do own one do not enjoy them, rather that at some level it is about putting your name on the ownership history.   There are a few coins that fit into this ego building arena besides just these five.    As such even if I had the funds I really doubt that I would ever really want to own one now, probably never find out I guess.     It is awesome that these types of coins do get displayed rather regularly so that us mere mortals can at least be able to see one.

You make a great point here, Coinbuf.  There's definitely an ego component to people chasing coins like this for sure.  I don't know.....things like that are so stratospheric that it's nothing most of us have to consider but if I had that kind of money, I think I'd still be chasing the same things I am now rather than all of a sudden chasing the super-rarities.  They're almost their own things that exist outside of the series that they're technically a part of, you know?  Almost no one who collects Liberty Nickels can afford a 1913, so it's not considered a ding against your set not to have one.  For me, I never really saw the appeal....there are plenty of more attainable numismatic items that often have cooler stories than the mega rarities anyway.

[Hoghead515]

On 11/11/2021 at 7:46 PM, Mohawk said:

You make a great point here, Coinbuf.  There's definitely an ego component to people chasing coins like this for sure.  I don't know.....things like that are so stratospheric that it's nothing most of us have to consider but if I had that kind of money, I think I'd still be chasing the same things I am now rather than all of a sudden chasing the super-rarities.  They're almost their own things that exist outside of the series that they're technically a part of, you know?  Almost no one who collects Liberty Nickels can afford a 1913, so it's not considered a ding against your set not to have one.  For me, I never really saw the appeal....there are plenty of more attainable numismatic items that often have cooler stories than the mega rarities anyway.

Same here. If I had that kind of money i would rather have several other cooins i can think of. I just couldnt see paying that much for one coin. Id go for trade dollars, trimes, and things like that. Definately some CCs. 

[VKurtB]

On 11/11/2021 at 11:05 AM, numisport said:

I think you would be more satisfied with a legitimate proof Liberty Nickel. You could purchase a beautiful cameo proof Liberty Nickel that knock your socks off for about 1/2000th of the price 

Proof Libs aren’t that hard to find, are they? Especially 1883’s. 

[Coinbuf]

On 11/11/2021 at 2:22 PM, Lem E said:

If I had that money, I would probably just buy more nickels…and a Ferrari.  

I call shotgun!!  

[Mohawk]

On 11/11/2021 at 8:38 PM, Hoghead515 said:

Same here. If I had that kind of money i would rather have several other cooins i can think of. I just couldnt see paying that much for one coin. Id go for trade dollars, trimes, and things like that. Definately some CCs. 

Now that sounds like a lot more fun to me, Hog, than one 4 million dollar Liberty Nickel!!! I'd definitely get myself some more Roman Egypt coins for sure.  And I'd be looking for this trial strike for a gold 4 oz Cleopatra Egyptian Gods round.  Apparently, Provident Metals was going to have a run of these minted to demand but the project was scrapped.......probably not too many folks in the market for a 4 oz gold round. They apparently made at least one trial strike, though, according to Worthpoint. If I had "I just sold a 1913 Liberty Nickel money", I'd be trying to find out if this trial strike still existed and if whoever had it was looking to part with it.  I guess I just went against my own stance on mega rarities in a very weird way 

Edited November 12, 2021 by Mohawk

[zadok]

On 11/11/2021 at 3:47 PM, Hoghead515 said:

Sorry bout that my friend. I mis spell that everytime. 

...if u buy that one u can spell it anyway u want to.....even call it "Hogs Nick".....

[VKurtB]

Any opinion on the Hawaii Five-O specimen being graded -PF-64=? Look s a bit generous to me. The Eliasberg looks far far better than the grade spread would indicate. Anyone think ANY OTHER DATE otherwise identical would make the same grade?

[numisport]

On 11/12/2021 at 3:00 PM, VKurtB said:

Any opinion on the Hawaii Five-O specimen being graded -PF-64=? Look s a bit generous to me. The Eliasberg looks far far better than the grade spread would indicate. Anyone think ANY OTHER DATE otherwise identical would make the same grade?

Market grades do not reflect anything but (at most) an appraisal, agree ?

[MarkFeld]

On 11/12/2021 at 2:00 PM, VKurtB said:

Any opinion on the Hawaii Five-O specimen being graded -PF-64=? Look s a bit generous to me. The Eliasberg looks far far better than the grade spread would indicate. Anyone think ANY OTHER DATE otherwise identical would make the same grade?

I believe that more times than not, in an effort to get the famous rarities into their holders, the major grading companies are extra liberal in their grading.

Short answer to your question - I think it would be unlikely.

[RWB]

Factually, it is very unlikely that either 1894-S dimes or 1913 Liberty nickels were really "proof" coins. It is more likely the dies were given a quick polish, and some pieces struck. The depth of mirror rapidly declining with each strike. CuNi, being much harder than 900 fine silver would abrade the mirror quicker. This can be observed in the 5  Liberty nickels by lining them up in order of reflectivity; same for 1894-S dimes.

[To go a step farther --- San Francisco never had a medal press of any kind, so could not have made legitimate proof coins -- ever. Philadelphia had 2 hydraulic medal presses in 1912-13 but they were accessible only by the Medal Foreman and the Coiner, thus requiring far more of a conspiracy to strike the pieces than likely possible by Mr. Brown. The 1913s required only pulling dies from a drawer in Barber's office (locked at night, but not very secure) and access to one common toggle press (press room often unlocked at night so watchmen could make their rounds and for emergency fire access). A toggle press could easily be operated by one person turning the flywheel - no motor or electricity needed. Lights were on at night in all workrooms.]

Edited November 13, 2021 by RWB

[Mohawk]

Now that's interesting, Roger.  So what would you say?  Would you consider them regular circulation strikes or some kind of specimen issue?  You make very good points that they really aren't proofs, especially in the case of the 1894-S dimes. If San Fran didn't have the correct press to make a true proof, then the 1894-S dimes cannot be proofs.  I agree with your stances on both coins, but I'd love to know what kind of strikes you consider them to be.

[VKurtB]

On 11/12/2021 at 7:45 PM, RWB said:

Factually, it is very unlikely that either 1894-S dimes or 1913 Liberty nickels were really "proof" coins. It is more likely the dies were given a quick polish, and some pieces struck. The depth of mirror rapidly declining with each strike. CuNi, being much harder than 900 fine silver would abrade the mirror quicker. This can be observed in the 5  Liberty nickels by lining them up in order of reflectivity; same for 1894-S dimes.

[To go a step farther --- San Francisco never had a medal press of any kind, so could not have made legitimate proof coins -- ever. Philadelphia had 2 hydraulic medal presses in 1912-13 but they were accessible only by the Medal Foreman and the Coiner, thus requiring far more of a conspiracy to strike the pieces than likely possible by Mr. Brown. The 1913s required only pulling dies from a drawer in Barber's office (locked at night, but not very secure) and access to one common toggle press (press room often unlocked at night so watchmen could make their rounds and for emergency fire access). A toggle press could easily be operated by one person turning the flywheel - no motor or electricity needed. Lights were on at night in all workrooms.]

I’ll feel more able to opine on proof coin making after I get my now-wildly-COVID-delayed VIP tour at Llansitrant. Now looking at late ‘22. The Royal Mint wants me to select a date (they only do them on Wednesdays) but the disease, and officials’ (over?)reaction thereto makes booking a date somewhat of a high risk venture.

[VKurtB]

On 11/12/2021 at 3:29 PM, numisport said:

Market grades do not reflect anything but (at most) an appraisal, agree ?

…or a pecking order? But then what establishes the starting point? The “worst” one is in the hands of the ANA, plus another one, and the “best” one is the Eliasberg. 

[VKurtB]

On 11/12/2021 at 8:12 PM, Mohawk said:

Now that's interesting, Roger.  So what would you say?  Would you consider them regular circulation strikes or some kind of specimen issue?  You make very good points that they really aren't proofs, especially in the case of the 1894-S dimes. If San Fran didn't have the correct press to make a true proof, then the 1894-S dimes cannot be proofs.  I agree with your stances on both coins, but I'd love to know what kind of strikes you consider them to be.

Maybe just what strikes off of truly “virgin” dies look like. These, and likely so-(mis?)called SMS 1964 strikes.

[Mohawk]

On 11/12/2021 at 8:25 PM, VKurtB said:

Maybe just what strikes off of truly “virgin” dies look like. These, and likely so-(mis?)called SMS 1964 strikes.

That makes sense, Kurt.  Given what Roger said, it definitely sounds like that was the situation with the 1913 Liberty Nickels and, especially, the 1894-S Barber Dimes.  It's not surprising that they would have some proof like character without being full proofs....I mean, look at Morgan Dollars from roughly the same time span......many P/L coins in that series for sure.  And that would likely be true of many of the 19th and early 20th Century series if they survived in the huge numbers in mint state that Morgans did due to sitting around as backing for silver certificates.  

[VKurtB]

On 11/12/2021 at 9:41 PM, Mohawk said:

That makes sense, Kurt.  Given what Roger said, it definitely sounds like that was the situation with the 1913 Liberty Nickels and, especially, the 1894-S Barber Dimes.  It's not surprising that they would have some proof like character without being full proofs....I mean, look at Morgan Dollars from roughly the same time span......many P/L coins in that series for sure.  And that would likely be true of many of the 19th and early 20th Century series if they survived in the huge numbers in mint state that Morgans did due to sitting around as backing for silver certificates.  

Yuppirs!

[numisport]

On 11/12/2021 at 8:18 PM, VKurtB said:

…or a pecking order? But then what establishes the starting point? The “worst” one is in the hands of the ANA, plus another one, and the “best” one is the Eliasberg. 

Maybe a starting point would be how many hairlines [from a wipe with a pocket handkerchief immediately after striking] are visible  

[MarkFeld]

On 11/13/2021 at 8:35 AM, numisport said:

Maybe a starting point would be how many hairlines [from a wipe with a pocket handkerchief immediately after striking] are visible  

That sounds like a largely pointless starting point. The number of hairlines might not be nearly as relevant as their size and/or placement. And then there are all of the other possible types of flaws and/or grade limiting considerations that need to be taken into account. And who says there was any wiping of the surfaces, after striking in the first place?

[numisport]

On 11/13/2021 at 10:02 AM, MarkFeld said:

That sounds like a largely pointless starting point. The number of hairlines might not be nearly as relevant as their size and/or placement. And then there are all of the other possible types of flaws and/or grade limiting considerations that need to be taken into account. And who says there was any wiping of the surfaces, after striking in the first place?

Without having viewed these in hand I confess to stirring the pot a little. None the less all the secrecy about how these were struck and even further how these are legal to own just strikes me as odd to say the least.

[RWB]

On 11/12/2021 at 8:12 PM, Mohawk said:

Now that's interesting, Roger.  So what would you say?  Would you consider them regular circulation strikes or some kind of specimen issue?  You make very good points that they really aren't proofs, especially in the case of the 1894-S dimes. If San Fran didn't have the correct press to make a true proof, then the 1894-S dimes cannot be proofs.  I agree with your stances on both coins, but I'd love to know what kind of strikes you consider them to be.

1894-S dimes are circulation strikes and recorded that way in all US Mint documents, reports and later correspondence to coin collectors. The real curiosity is why more were not made in the 2nd half of the calendar year. Mint HQ was fully aware that only 24 had been made, and HQ had a verbal policy of preventing low mintage that encouraged speculation.

1913 Liberty nickels are novodels, being pieces made from official dies in imitation of legitimate coins. They are not mentioned in any US Mint documents and reports.

Edited November 13, 2021 by RWB

[RWB]

On 11/12/2021 at 9:41 PM, Mohawk said:

That makes sense, Kurt.  Given what Roger said, it definitely sounds like that was the situation with the 1913 Liberty Nickels and, especially, the 1894-S Barber Dimes.  It's not surprising that they would have some proof like character without being full proofs....I mean, look at Morgan Dollars from roughly the same time span......many P/L coins in that series for sure.  And that would likely be true of many of the 19th and early 20th Century series if they survived in the huge numbers in mint state that Morgans did due to sitting around as backing for silver certificates.  

The final step in die production was a quick dip in dilute acid to remove any fire scale or debris left from hardening and tempering. The normal original die surface is thus a soft satin-metallic sheen. Proof dies were then carefully polished. Anyone at any mint could polish a die - the lime, emery or rouge necessary was available. But making a proof took more than making the die shiny or reflective.

Why 1894-S or 1913 LH dies were lightly polished is unknown.