Three Cent Nickels 2 2

[zadok]

On 8/28/2023 at 1:38 PM, VKurtB said:

You have to take the Summer Seminar course. We discussed exactly that for a week. Yes, for "Specimen" strikes specifically. They stressed that NGC and PCGS are in SERIOUS disagreement on what constitutes a Specimen. PCGS is much "looser" in designating Specimens.

...yes, but "specimen" constitutes much more than just the "strike" that rwb so fanatically emphasizes all the time...his interpretation of what he considers a specimen coin is just that, his interpretation, nothing more...last time i looked he had not been anointed "grading czar of the year" by any known authority...true, as u say pcgs has a much broader latitude for "specimen" labeling, so what?...nothing says that the tpgs must agree, sure consistency mite be a convenient thing to have but not required, if one doesnt like a certain tpgs criteria go to the other one, much like certain dealers/collectors prefer one over the other as to US coins, the market follows the collectors...i did not follow the end results of the summer seminar course, perhaps it recommended the tpgs publish their definitions or if not maybe they should have?...perhaps u could provide a synopsis of the seminar findings??....

[Sandon]

    I'm not sure what this topic has to do with the controversy regarding the definition of "Specimen", as to my knowledge there are no alleged "Specimen" strikings of three cent nickels.

   The 1885 three cent nickel has a reported mintage of only 1,000 circulation strikes, the lowest number for the series, and 3,790 proofs.  NGC has certified 41 submissions as circulation strikes, including 4 "details" graded pieces, and 1,105 submissions as proofs in all categories, while the corresponding numbers for pieces submitted to PCGS are 140 certified as circulation strikes and 1,454 as proofs in all categories. The combined grading event population is 181 circulation strikes and 2,559 proofs. Those that were designated circulation strikes have a grade range of Fine to MS 66 at NGC and Fine to MS 67 at PCGS. About 90% of proofs graded by both services are non-cameos, with nearly all the rest designated cameo and deep or ultra cameos in low single digits.  Like the other dates reviewed in this topic, most proofs grade 64 or 65, with pieces graded 66 also frequently encountered, 67s much scarcer, and top of population 68s in single digits. Some circulated pieces are also included in the proof populations.

   I have seen no published criteria for determining whether an 1885 three cent nickel was struck as a circulation strike or a proof. I have observed that at least two different obverse dies were used to strike this date, one of which has the "1" nearly touching the bust and the other with the "1" farther from the bust. Most of the pieces certified as circulation strikes whose photos I have seen appear to have been struck from the die with the "1" nearly touching the bust, but some, such as the piece graded AU 55 on the PCGS Coinfacts image page, are of the "far 1" variety. Images of Three Cent Nickel 1885 3CN - PCGS CoinFacts.  Pieces designated as proofs are also seen from both obverses. Images of Three Cent Nickel 1885 3CN - PCGS CoinFacts.  The photos also reveal that unworn pieces given either designation may have a satiny finish instead of the frosty finish associated with circulation strikes or the mirrorlike finish associated with proofs. Nevertheless, pieces certified as circulation strikes sell for multiples of the prices realized for those certified as proofs in equivalent--or even much higher--grades. For example, Coin World Values currently lists a VG 8 circulation strike 1885 at $1,250 (none listed as certified by NGC or PCGS in that grade) and a Proof 65 at $625, or half as much. Last week, Stacks Bowers actually sold a piece that NGC certified as MS 61 for $5,040. https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-13WLAP/1885-nickel-three-cent-piece-ms-61-ngc. 

   My own 1885 three cent nickel, acquired at a 2015 auction, is certified as--and appears to be--a proof that PCGS graded PR 64, with mirrorlike fields and somewhat frosted devices. It has some weakness at the upper obverse rim and Liberty's hair. I have seen similar striking irregularities on other pieces designated as proofs of this date, although the weakness varies in location.  This coin was struck from the "far 1" obverse.

Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.  

Edited August 29, 2023 by Sandon

[RWB]

On 8/28/2023 at 8:29 PM, Sandon said:

  I'm not sure what this topic has to do with the controversy regarding the definition of "Specimen", as to my knowledge there are no alleged "Specimen" strikings of three cent nickels.

It relates to the arbitrary and fact-free attribution by TPGs of such things as the 3-cent proofs you mentioned as well as other things. TPGs must put the facts and their hard research on the line when they make a discrimination between proof and circulation strikes on some denominations and years.

[Henri Charriere]

On 8/28/2023 at 8:52 PM, RWB said:

It relates to the arbitrary and fact-free attribution by TPGs of such things as the 3-cent proofs you mentioned as well as other things....

I believe the real reason why this is so, and you have been harping on this for a long time, is financialization (which I prefer to call the weaponization of grades as promoted by investor interests) and wielded by those of that persuasion, only because they can. [Reminds me of the bully who replied to my best offer with, "how badly do you want it?"].

But there is something else to be considered here and that is some things go beyond the pale and are, at base, inarticulable.

[Henri Charriere]

On 8/28/2023 at 8:29 PM, Sandon said:

    I'm not sure what this topic has to do with the controversy regarding the definition of "Specimen", as to my knowledge there are no alleged "Specimen" strikings of three cent nickels.... 

Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.  

[I am painfully aware Board Guidelines prohibit me from doing so, but I can no longer contain myself.  I don't know whether the descriptor, "Newbie," was bestowed upon you by mgmt. or adopted passively, but should like to suggest this column or thread, standing alone, disqualifies you from proceeding with that low-ball moniker and, if I may, I should like to direct the membership's attention to the latest Leaderboard rankings, featuring a come-from-behind, remarkable, muscle-car ascension that defies description.

All in favor of elevating this member's position more suitable to his standing here, say aye!] 

To Moderation:  I am prepared to take my punishment. 

[RWB]

On 8/28/2023 at 9:44 PM, Henri Charriere said:

I believe the real reason why this is so, and you have been harping on this for a long time, is financialization

No. The reason is that it is dishonest and not truthful. The TPGs claims of accuracy are patently false if they cannot, and do not, specify how they reached a decision on these unusual pieces. This is not secret information -- unless it is invented Breen-style. The "value" is relevant  only when an unsubstantiated "declaration" is presented as supported fact and people make assumptions.

[GoldFinger1969]

This coin was created to make it easy to purchase 3-cent stamps, right ?

[RWB]

On 8/29/2023 at 11:51 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

This coin was created to make it easy to purchase 3-cent stamps, right ?

No. That was the 3-cent silver. 3-cent CuNi were added to get more small change into circulation (and also increase Mint profits).

[Sandon]

    Let's take a look at the earlier, relatively common dates of circulation issue three cent nickels, beginning with the initial issues of 1865 and 1866.  

    Based upon the mintage figures stated in recent editions of the "Redbook", the mint produced a total of 31,332,527 three cent nickels for circulation from 1865 through 1889.  Of this total, 23,350,000--nearly three quarters--were minted in and presumably dated 1865, 1866, 1867, and 1868.  As noted in my initial post in this topic, these coins tend to be of lower quality, exhibiting weak strikes, die cracks and breaks, and clash marks. The lines in the Roman numeral "III" are often incomplete even on pieces of this era in higher mint state grades.

   The 1865 issue has the highest reported mintage at 11,382,000 pieces, by itself over 36.3% of all three cent nickels struck for circulation. As expected, it is the most common issue. I included photos of the MS 64 graded example from my collection in my initial post for this topic. NGC and PCGS graded submissions total 6,056, and NGC has "details" graded an additional 500 submissions.  Most of these submissions have been graded between MS 62 and MS 64, with "67" being the highest grade awarded by either service--five pieces each at NGC and PCGS. Uncertified pieces in the full range of circulated grades and lower end mint state grades, which aren't worth the cost of third-party grading, undoubtedly outnumber the certified ones by many multiples. These late Civil War era coins can be found at nearly every coin shop and show, often in quantity, mostly in stapled 2x2s and flips, and low-end pieces loose in "junk boxes". They can still be obtained for $20 or so in Very Good condition to $65 or so in AU 50.

   The 1866 issue has the second highest reported mintage, 4,801,000. less than 42% of the 1865 mintage. NGC and PCGS combined have numerically graded 2,318 submissions, and NGC reports 216 "details" graded submissions.  More or less consistently with the lower mintage, the numerically graded submissions are only about 38.3% of the 1865s.  As with the 1865s, however, most of the coins submitted grade between MS 62 and MS 64, lower grade pieces usually being considered unworthy of submission.  NGC has graded a single coin MS 68, one of only four circulation strike three cent nickels in the entire series to achieve this exceptional grade. The highest grade at PCGS is MS 67+, also for a single coin. Like the other earlier dates, nice circulated uncertified 1866 three cent nickels are also quite inexpensive and easy to find.

  Although I already had a low-end uncirculated example of the 1866 in my album, I got a good deal at an auction last March on this NGC graded MS 64 example:

Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

   This coin is relatively attractive for the issue but exhibits the typical clash marks and weakness on the lines of the "III".  The obverse appears to have been struck from dies that were rusted or had some foreign matter adhering to portions of Liberty's face.  All 1866 three cent nickels, as well as 1866 Shield nickels, show the second "6" in the date appearing to be slightly taller and narrower than the first "6".   

[Henri Charriere]

On 8/3/2023 at 6:07 PM, Sandon said:

 

....While these factors render the proof status of the coin somewhat questionable,....   

I may be an amateur rookie to some and only peripherally familiar with the series, but I maintain, relying solely on the "Redbook" (which you cloak correctly with quotation marks) that a proof is a proof is a proof.

A proof is born a proof and remains a proof for the duration of its life. Should any indignities or distractions occur along the way, there is an app for that.  Now that the Sheldon scale has been deemed to be applicable to proofs, with increments assigned to embrace every phenomenon that can be visited upon metal to compromise its integrity, the proof prevails with a double-digit suffix. Nothing can change that. Nothing!

I stand firm in my conviction and freely stake my tattered reputation, lack of credibility and knowledge of the series. If my assertion is plain wrong and laughably uninformed, I will relinquish forthwith the descriptor, "Rising Star" that was so generously bestowed upon me by NGC staffers unknown to me.

[VKurtB]

As further evidence of my “rule” to never collect what is hot at any given time, the 3-cent nickel has been one of my areas of concentration for quite some time. Any denomination that is affected by the year 1873 will always result in a checkered and complicated history. I’d advise any new numismatist to study the Coinage Act of 1873. Changes upon changes. It led more or less directly to the Bland-Allison Act that gave us the Morgan dollar. But the three cent nickel is the centerpiece to my 2018 World’s Fair of Money 2nd Place in class exhibit that also won the Derek Pobjoy Award that year. It was and is a local Philadelphia/Eastern Pennsylvania/Camden story. I collect them raw and in high, very high, grades. For several dates, circulation strikes are rarer than the corresponding proofs are. It’s a fascinating series that deserves far more attention than it has gotten, but NOT THE PUMP AND DUMP treatment given here to the five cent coins by Mr. MM. Yes, it apparently takes either silver or gold content to get some people’s juices flowing, but not mine. Art and history do for me what gold fever does for others. 
 

For many series, people try to see a coin as a proof (1909-1916 cents), but for several III dates, people try to talk themselves OUT OF a proof into a circulation strike. Oh what fun!

Edited September 5, 2023 by VKurtB

[zadok]

On 9/4/2023 at 10:08 PM, VKurtB said:

As further evidence of my “rule” to never collect what is hot at any given time, the 3-cent nickel has been one of my areas of concentration for quite some time. Any denomination that is affected by the year 1873 will always result in a checkered and complicated history. I’d advise any new numismatist to study the Coinage Act of 1873. Changes upon changes. It led more or less directly to the Bland-Allison Act that gave us the Morgan dollar. But the three cent nickel is the centerpiece to my 2018 World’s Fair of Money 2nd Place in class exhibit that also won the Derek Pobjoy Award that year. It was and is a local Philadelphia/Eastern Pennsylvania/Camden story. I collect them raw and in high, very high, grades. For several dates, circulation strikes are rarer than the corresponding proofs are. It’s a fascinating series that deserves far more attention than it has gotten, but NOT THE PUMP AND DUMP treatment given here to the five cent coins by Mr. MM. Yes, it apparently takes either silver or gold content to get some people’s juices flowing, but not mine. Art and history do for me what gold fever does for others. 
 

For many series, people try to see a coin as a proof (1909-1916 cents), but for several III dates, people try to talk themselves OUT OF a proof into a circulation strike. Oh what fun!

...u touch upon a favorite n sentimental thread from a thread...ur comment bout the complicated history of the year 1873 numismatically speaking brings back a lot of memories...n it is so correct, Harry Boosel, "Mr. 1873", n i used to correspond (pre-internet n pre-cell phone) by letter bout all the various varieties in US series for this date...closed 3 open 3 etc etc for many of our series, some very rare...in his attempt to have one each of every variety in every denomination...long gone but not forgotten....

[zadok]

On 9/5/2023 at 10:21 AM, zadok said:

...u touch upon a favorite n sentimental thread from a thread...ur comment bout the complicated history of the year 1873 numismatically speaking brings back a lot of memories...n it is so correct, Harry Boosel, "Mr. 1873", n i used to correspond (pre-internet n pre-cell phone) by letter bout all the various varieties in US series for this date...closed 3 open 3 etc etc for many of our series, some very rare...in his attempt to have one each of every variety in every denomination...long gone but not forgotten....

...addendum:...he even started collecting world coins by krause by this date....

[RWB]

On 9/4/2023 at 8:50 PM, Henri Charriere said:

a proof is a proof is a proof.

Agreed. "Proof" is a method of manufacture. That occurs only once.

The difficulty is relying on appearance alone to determine if a coin was struck as a proof or a circulation piece. This is also where the absence of published criteria and careful scientific examination prevent finding the truth.

Added later: It's also the crux of the debates about early Master Coins, except the pieces before 1837 were made on the same type of equipment as post 1837. That is after 1836 circulation coins were struck only with Franklin Peale's toggle presses and Master Coins or Proof Coins were made only on a large screw (or "fly") press. Pre-1837 were have to relay a lot more on appearance, context and intent than technical details from documents (which are scarce).

Edited September 5, 2023 by RWB

[mania]

RWB nailed it with his note.  I had assembled a very nice Proof set (Less the 1871) and had just sold it off this past year.  I enjoyed the set and felt it was great looking in hand ... however,  I had struggled with side by side comparison of Proof vs MS examples.  Some appear very "back and white" as proof but then again I saw many MS TPG pieces that appeared proof as well.  Oh well is was fun to collect these ( PS --- the 1871 was missing as I never came across one in a 66+ grade that I liked and believe it maybe scarcer that one might believe)

Now saying that, I enjoy patterns now and one of the fun aspect is trying to assemble small sets that have some common historical connections ... the attempt to develop common small denomination designs as RWB noted earlier in the post. This set is about as far I can assemble as the other copper pieces are extremely rare.  The 2 different designs in 1868 is note worthy..

[RWB]

mania --

Very nice coins and nice presentation!

[Sandon]

    This will continue my discussion of the earlier, common dates of copper nickel three cent pieces.   

    The 1867 three cent nickel has a reported circulation strike mintage of 3,915,000 pieces, lower than the 1866 and much lower than the 1865. The 1868 three cent nickel's reported circulation strike mintage of 3,252,000 pieces continued the decline, but these mintages are still fairly high in the context of nineteenth century U.S. coinage. Like the previous dates, these coins are easily obtainable in circulated grades and available in low to mid-uncirculated grades as well. NGC and PCGS have numerically graded a total of 1,807 1867s and 1,771 1868's, with the highest numerical grade awarded by either service being MS 67 for the 1867 (by NGC) and MS 67+ for the 1868 (by PCGS).  Obviously, the vast majority of these coins in existence are uncertified and those that are circulated are not worth the cost of third-party grading.

   Here are certified examples of each date from my collection, both graded MS 63, the 1867 graded by NGC and the 1868 by PCGS, both in older holders. Each coin is well struck for a circulation issue, but each with the clash marks and die cracks that are all too common on earlier dates in the series.

 

    

[Sandon]

   I was going to wait until I could get the album page containing my uncertified three cent nickels from a safe deposit box before continuing this thread, but a development in a topic on the "Newbie" forum prompted me to add the one certified three cent nickel, acquired earlier this year, that I haven't yet featured on this thread, an 1874.  The 1874 is one of what I will refer to as the "better common dates" in the series from 1871 to 1876, each with a mintage of less than a million pieces, except for the 1873, whose two major varieties ("closed" and "open" 3) taken separately also have reported mintages under a million pieces each.  These better common dates can be found in circulated grades with some searching but can be somewhat challenging to locate in uncirculated grades, especially nicer ones.  Although the quality of three cent nickels dated in the 1870s tends to be better than those of the earlier, high mintage pieces of the 1860s, a fair number of these coins still exhibit various striking anomalies, including this 1874.

   The 1874 issue has a reported circulation strike mintage of 790,000.  NGC has awarded numerical grades to 252 submissions, with a corresponding PCGS population of 371.  NGC graded the coin shown here MS 64; NGC has awarded this fairly modest grade to all of 64 submissions, with only 31 submissions graded higher. Because the coin exhibits a roughly oval shaped obverse depression around the tip of the coronet, which I am convinced is a "strikethrough" of something lying on the planchet or adhering to the obverse die during striking, I posted the auction photos of it in a thread regarding a damaged Washington quarter that had what the poster described as an "almost hole" from a hard hit by a tool or projectile. @EagleRJO believes that the anomaly on this three-cent nickel may be a planchet flaw. (NGC did not attribute the coin as a mint error, probably because whoever submitted it did not request such attribution.) I agreed to take additional photos of the coin and post them on this topic.

   First of all, here are the auction photos of the coin, courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries:

   Now, here are photos I took with a digital microscope of the full obverse and reverse of the coin:

    I took several closeups of the anomaly from different lighting angles and intensities, none of which captured its exact appearance of the actual coin, largely due to the glare that both the coin and its holder reflect back. The first is what I consider the most accurate shot. The others show different aspects of the anomaly.

   

 

 

     The depression is shiny and lustrous throughout and appears to have been created by something struck into the planchet, not a preexisting planchet flaw.  What may appear on some shots to be jagged areas are the sloping walls of the depression, which is somewhat bowl shaped and has slight internal protrusions on the southern side. The proximity of the depression to the point of the coronet, which appears to be unaffected, is likely fortuitous. The edge of the foreign matter (scrap metal?) that produced the strikethrough likely lay just next to the coronet.   My vote remains for "strikethrough", although I'm open for any other informed and reasoned opinion.

[Henri Charriere]

Very fine presentation, Sandon, and let this thorough analysis of the meteorite strike prove for once and for all the utility provided by enhanced magnification whether by your space age electron microscope or by my vintage 30-power jeweler's loupe one rather vocal member expressly forbids me to use in any capacity.  

If there are finer 3-cent pieces anywhere, I have yet to set my eyes on them.  

Edited October 14, 2023 by Henri Charriere
Die-polishing (w/o sandpaper)

[EagleRJO]

Thanks for posting the additional pics of that 1874 3CN Sandon.  Those more clearly show a smooth indentation as described that would not result from a planchet flaw that flaked off.

Also, it no longer appears that there was a slight undercut of the coronet tip as mentioned in the other thread, and the appearance of that as well as an uneven indentation surface were likely just the result of the lighting and picture angles.

Therefore it is likely a struck through error.  Due to the irregular outline the only thing I can come up with is that a rounded piece or corner of a small metal machine part broke off somewhere in the mint and ended up with the irregular fracture plane flatwise on the obverse die when the coin was struck.

Btw, nice collection of 3CN's.

[JDBradford]

 Discovered this 1886 XF 40 and does not indicate the coin is a proof.  Is this a rarity or a circulated proof?

[Henri Charriere]

On 4/9/2024 at 7:18 AM, JDBradford said:

 Discovered this 1886 XF 40 and does not indicate the coin is a proof.  Is this a rarity or a circulated proof?

I am not going to comment on whether this a "rarity". If you are its owner, I cannot fathom why you would acquire it without knowing the simplest of basics about it: rarity and price. 

Moving right along, I fail to see what basis you have for challenging, not the opinion of some self-described grading czar, of which we are never in short supply, but a recognized TPGS that has been around for decades. Somewhere, buried deep within this year's topics and posts, was a bit of trivia which may be relevant. If I am not mistaken, the member stated no circulated Proof has been certified, in substance, below the AU range (which dwells within the 50's).  This is not to say no such Proofs exist. It merely suggests in decades of TPGS operations, none has been so certified. Malheureusement, if you feel your coin qualifies for such distinction, it would probably have to be exhumed from its slab to aid the examiner, amateur or pro, in making that determination via an in-hand inspection. I have no doubt that the OP, whose forte among many others, is three-cent nickels, may be interested to learn what in particular gave rise to your query.

Edited April 9 by Henri Charriere
Word substitution.

[Sandon]

@JDBradford--Welcome to the NGC chat board. It is better to start a new topic on this or the "Newbie Coin Collecting Questions" forum when you have a question about a specific coin.

   Mint records indicate that 1886 copper nickel three cent pieces were only struck as proofs, so your coin would be classified as a circulated proof.  NGC Certificate Verification more accurately describes it as "PF 40". See Verify NGC Certification | NGC (ngccoin.com).  The NGC census only lists the 1886 as a proof and currently shows 23 pieces numerically graded in circulated grades from Fine through AU 58. See Nickel Three Cents (1865-1889) | Coin Census Population Report | NGC (ngccoin.com).

Edited April 9 by Sandon

[Henri Charriere]

Left conspicuously unsaid is why the label on @JDBradford 's 1886 III-cent CuNi declares it to be an "XF 40" when your meticulous research indicates NGC Certification "more accurately describes it as PF 40."  I would imagine anyone buying such a coin would be miffed and inclined to give the seller a less than satisfactory review because the item which he received "was not as described."  If I spend time looking for a specific example, the last thing I would want to receive is a coin that is not a Proof, or even a Mint State -- but an Extra Fine, along with a note stating, "TRUST ME, the coin is more accurately described by the very people who certified it as a Proof 40." What recourse does the buyer have?  No way I am going to hold on to a slab I KNOW will present a problem to me or my heirs in the near future.

[JDBradford]

Appreciate the guidance from all.  Typo error as I originally suspected.  Again, really appreciate the guidance.