1868 5c Need Help Identifying and Grade?

[Die Varieties]

I need help on this 1868 5c that appears to me to exhibit a doubled die obverse. Below are scans of the coin and micro-photos. Any help in which variety this is and its grade is most appreciated. If it helps any -- I put a couple of arrows on the obverse scan pointing out a die crack.

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks ...

[Hoot]

Looks like a nice VF20/25 coin to me. Don't know the CP or other variety attribution.

 

Hoot

[BankNote1]

The coin looks XF to me!

The reverse looks like the Variety 5! That is the FS# 5c-002.98. This variety has no broken letters. According to the "CPG" it is a rare and valuble one!

 

The obverse looks like FS# 5c-003.9. doubling is slightly South and most of it is in the upper portions of the obverse. This obverse isn't that scarce.

 

I think you need to get the coin slabbed as I don't know what the value might be. I do have a dealer friend who does buy and sell this type of stuff! He could look at it and put a value on it but I can't! He recently purchased a sextupled star from one of the forum members here and paid a good bit for it as well.

[HaydenTubbs]

I'd call it a VF-30.Neat variety,but I wouldn't be able to help you with any attributation...

-Hayden

[Mozin]

I am pretty sure this is F-108 URS-3 meaning 3 or 4 known according to the Fletcher book copyright 1994. My guess is there are many more than 4 in existence.

[Die Varieties]

Thanks for the replys. I was considering sending the coin in for slabbing, however, there is some green PVC as you can see on the scans and this worries me it most likely will be body-bagged. Any thoughts on removing this? I hate to touch a coin and this appears to me to be an original. Or should I just leave it alone?

[IGWT]

Die Varieties --

 

The 1868 5c shield has rev hub IIa (rev '67). You can tell by the position of the stars, in particular, the star at K12 points to the E instead of the tail of the S in STATES. So, I'll disagree that it's a FS-012.8.

 

It can be very hard to attribute minor DDOs in the shield series; and, in fact, there are 20 reported DDOs paired with rev '67, just half of which are in either Fletcher or CPG. The shape of the engraved outer leaf of the second leaf cluster on the right (RL2) is a key diagnostic on obv hub A -- maybe you can get a tighter shot of RL2 to help with the attribution. My guess is that the variety is not in either Fletcher or CPG (it's hard to tell because those resources generally don't include photos of dates, leaves, or other die markers).

 

There will be a modest premium for the variety (for some reason, unless a variety is reported in CPG, the market regards it as less "real"). PM me if you want more information.

[Die Varieties]

Thanks for the info IGWT and totally agree on your observation of the star at K12 pointing to the "E" of STATES making this a reverse of '67.

 

Sounds like this is a fairly common one of the many DDO's for this date. At least it has a home with me.

[Mozin]

Die Varieties --

 

The 1868 5c shield has rev hub IIa (rev '67). You can tell by the position of the stars, in particular, the star at K12 points to the E instead of the tail of the S in STATES. So, I'll disagree that it's a FS-012.8.

 

It can be very hard to attribute minor DDOs in the shield series; and, in fact, there are 20 reported DDOs paired with rev '67, just half of which are in either Fletcher or CPG. The shape of the engraved outer leaf of the second leaf cluster on the right (RL2) is a key diagnostic on obv hub A -- maybe you can get a tighter shot of RL2 to help with the attribution. My guess is that the variety is not in either Fletcher or CPG (it's hard to tell because those resources generally don't include photos of dates, leaves, or other die markers).

 

There will be a modest premium for the variety (for some reason, unless a variety is reported in CPG, the market regards it as less "real"). PM me if you want more information.

Some of you Shield Nickel guys are pretty thorough. It is about time the books on Shields are updated so the rest of us can attribute properly.

[BankNote1]

For the green stuff dip the coin in acetone! You can get it at any place that sells paint!

If I looked at your coin right it "is" in the "Cherry Pickers Guide"! The problem is most of the guides are out dated!

If it was me, I would clean the coin off with acetone and send it to ANACS! They will list the variety regardless of what book it is in!!!

[IGWT]

Sounds like this is a fairly common one of the many DDO's for this date. At least it has a home with me.

 

Every DDO is uncommonly precious, and every shield needs a good home.

[Die Varieties]

Ah -- acetone, that's the stuff one doesn't have a match within 100 miles downrange. I think I will send it off to ANACS. Though the doubling is not one of the stronger ones, it's still neat looking to me and she has a good home here with all my other die varieties.

 

Thanks everybody for the help, great information -- and as usual, this board is extremely knowledgeable and friendly. Not at all like another board that I was going to join, but didn't care for all the flame wars that go on there.

[BankNote1]

Acetone isn't that bad unless you drink it! It is about the best to get the old holder crud off of a coin. If you are worried about the chemical send the coin to NCS! They will clean the green crud off of your coin. The nickel is in the "CPG" so you would think that with $7 extra for "variety plus" would get NGC to put the Variety on the holder!?!?!?!? Maybe!

[skippy]

Billy,

 

You have received some pretty good advice so far. Your coin has the wrong reverse hub to be any of the FS-002.94 through 2.99 varieties.

 

It's also not F-108 as suggested, because F-108 is also a different reverse hub.

 

My grade on your coin would be VF-30. Many people tend to undergrade shield nickels because they often come weakly struck.

 

As far as attribution, it looks to me like I can see a very small RPD south on the second 8. If so, it is a probably a match for a coin in my files. It would not be a variety that's published in any books.

 

However, (and this reply goes to mozin's question above about updating shield nickel references), I do have a new reference on shield nickels called SNV. You can read about it on my website at http://www.shieldnickels.net/snv/snv.html (you may find the entire website starting at www.shieldnickels.net interesting).

 

In SNV, this variety is listed as 1868 S1-7006.

 

I would not follow the suggestion to send the coin to ANACS for attribution. They won't get it right. Most likely they will slap a label of "FS-003.9" on it, which is what they do for most any 1868 minor DDO. I don't see any advantage to slabbing this coin - just makes it harder to study. I doubt if slabbing will affect its value much.

 

I have used acetone on many shield nickels without hurting them. Lots of times it doesn't do much good either. Your nickel looks to be in reasonable shape as is and I wouldn't consider anything other than acetone. Something like MS-70 will clean the coin better, but leave it unnaturally bright, which to my eye looks horrible on a circulated nickel.

 

As far as value, I would pay around $65-70 for this one. Others might pay a little more or a little less.

 

If you (or anyone else) has shield nickel questions, I invite you to check with me on them. Shield nickels are my passion..

 

Regards,

Howard

[IGWT]

Hi and welcome, Howard. Glad to see you here!

 

Collectors who are interested in Shield 5c varieties should look into Howard's SNV (Shield Nickel Viewer) attribution program. I've used SNV since Howard released it a couple of months ago, and it is nothing short of a godsend for shield enthusiasts. It provides the information necessary -- including multiple photographs for each variety -- for definitive attributions in many cases where CPG, Fletcher, and P&M leave you wondering. There are scores of previously uncatalogued varieties in the database.

 

Note for the cynics: Howard did not tell me that he was going to post here, and my endorsement is unsolicited. I contributed a couple of photos for SNV; but, I have no financial or other interest in the project (and, in fact, I paid for my copy -- the best money I ever spent for a numismatic resource).

[Mozin]

Billy,

 

You have received some pretty good advice so far. Your coin has the wrong reverse hub to be any of the FS-002.94 through 2.99 varieties.

 

It's also not F-108 as suggested, because F-108 is also a different reverse hub.

 

My grade on your coin would be VF-30. Many people tend to undergrade shield nickels because they often come weakly struck.

 

As far as attribution, it looks to me like I can see a very small RPD south on the second 8. If so, it is a probably a match for a coin in my files. It would not be a variety that's published in any books.

 

However, (and this reply goes to mozin's question above about updating shield nickel references), I do have a new reference on shield nickels called SNV. You can read about it on my website at http://www.shieldnickels.net/snv/snv.html (you may find the entire website starting at www.shieldnickels.net interesting).

 

In SNV, this variety is listed as 1868 S1-7006.

 

I would not follow the suggestion to send the coin to ANACS for attribution. They won't get it right. Most likely they will slap a label of "FS-003.9" on it, which is what they do for most any 1868 minor DDO. I don't see any advantage to slabbing this coin - just makes it harder to study. I doubt if slabbing will affect its value much.

 

I have used acetone on many shield nickels without hurting them. Lots of times it doesn't do much good either. Your nickel looks to be in reasonable shape as is and I wouldn't consider anything other than acetone. Something like MS-70 will clean the coin better, but leave it unnaturally bright, which to my eye looks horrible on a circulated nickel.

 

As far as value, I would pay around $65-70 for this one. Others might pay a little more or a little less.

 

If you (or anyone else) has shield nickel questions, I invite you to check with me on them. Shield nickels are my passion..

 

Regards,

Howard

You sure took your time commenting on this thread.

Good to see you still have time for Shields.

[skippy]

You sure took your time commenting on this thread.

 

If you see something you think I should comment on, feel free to point it out to me. I rarely check on these boards.

 

Howard

[BankNote1]

With the several different answers on the type of variety of the Shield Nickel it sounds to me that the "CherryPickers Guide" is next to useless on Shield Nickels!!!

It amazes me that the coin can look like a variety and actually it isn't even a variety that is in the book???

Also if ANACS can't get it right on the Shield varieties it looks like someone with the expertise would tell ANACS of their problems.

Are the Shield Nickels the only coin that ANACS is getting wrong on the varieties? I do know they do a good job on Morgans with the VAM #S. They also do a good job with Buffalo Nickel varieties, IMO...

[skippy]

With the several different answers on the type of variety of the Shield Nickel it sounds to me that the "CherryPickers Guide" is next to useless on Shield Nickels!!!

 

That's a reasonably accurate assessment for shield nickel specialists. The problem is that if the CPG were to attempt to document all of the shield nickel varieties it would quickly become a book solely about shield nickel varieties. That would be a disservice to all the other series that CPG addresses.

 

CPG is pretty good as far as covering most of the really MAJOR shield nickel varieties (although there are few it's missing). But the minor varieties are legion.

 

 

It amazes me that the coin can look like a variety and actually it isn't even a variety that is in the book???

 

It's not the book's fault that many shield nickel varieties look very similar to each other. In order to accurately attribute SN varieties, one needs several photos of the entire coin - far more than CPG can provide in its format.

 

I'm not disparaging CPG in any way. It's a wonderful book. I contribute to it and I support its authors in their endeavors. But it simply can't compete with a specialized reference for shield nickels.

 

Also if ANACS can't get it right on the Shield varieties it looks like someone with the expertise would tell ANACS of their problems.

Are the Shield Nickels the only coin that ANACS is getting wrong on the varieties? I do know they do a good job on Morgans with the VAM #S. They also do a good job with Buffalo Nickel varieties, IMO...

 

ANACS can only do as good as job as the reference materials they have allow them to do. Consequently, when they see (for example) a minor obverse 1868 doubled die they label it FS-003.9, because that's the only minor obverse 1868 doubled die in CPG. Attributing to Fletcher is a little better because it covers more varieties, but again one is hampered because Fletcher shows only one small portion of the coin in the photo and some varieties are indistinguishable from each other based only on that photo. One needs more evidence like die cracks or the shape of the engraved leaf on the earlier years.

 

For some of the SN varieties, it can really take a specialist and quite a bit of practice to attribute accurately. Even then, there are still a lot of undocumented varieties. I document them as fast I can be provided with photographs (or lent the coins to photograph them myself). To give you an example of the sheer numbers involved, Fletcher documents a little under 400 varieties. SNV also documents a little under 400 varieties. But those two references have at least 100 varieties that are disjoint. (CPG covers a little over 100 varieties.)

 

In contrast, VAMs are better documented because there are far more many eyes looking for them.

 

Howard

[skippy]

Every DDO is uncommonly precious, and every shield needs a good home.

 

Well said, but the RPDs are upset. :-)

 

Howard

[IGWT]

Hi BN1--

 

The last two slabbed shield varieties that I picked up were misattributed, one by ANACS and another by NGC. There's a tendency, I think, for the TPGs to limit their attribution to varieties that appear in the published guides, even though (1) those references admittedly contain just a fraction of the varieties, and (2) attribution can be very difficult using just the photos in those guides. The TPGs seem favor a specific attribution if it's "close" to one of the catalogued varieties. That thinking might work for horseshoes and hand grenades, but not for die varieties. I never take the variety listed on a slab insert at face value.

 

That's my experience with the Shield 5c series. I don't know if that lesson is fairly applied to Morgan 1$ and Buffalo 5c; but, IMHO, it might be wise to err on the side of caution.

[BankNote1]

I think I will just stay away from Shield Nickels!!!

[skippy]

I think I will just stay away from Shield Nickels!!!

 

Not that I'm trying to encourage competition, but staying away from shield nickels:

 

1. Cuts you off from a series that has more fantastic varieties than any other.

2. Cuts you off from a series that actually is doable, with only the 1880 being really expensive. Two years ago, not even the 1880 was that expensive.

3. Cuts you off from a series that is probably pretty underpriced relative to other series.

 

The fact that so many varieties are uncatalogued is not cause for dismay - it's cause for joy. Here is a series that you can research and make useful contributions. Morgan dollars have been so researched to death that the VAM collectors get excited when they find a new die crack now. Shield nickel collectors see die cracks and go "Pffft, there's way more interesting things to search for." :-)

 

Howard

[Die Varieties]

Howard and all -- thanks for the great info. Very nice web site Howard, those are some monster varieties.

[HaydenTubbs]

Welcome Howard,that's a great site.I'll have to bookmark it for reference.

 

-Hayden

[skippy]

Howard and all -- thanks for the great info. Very nice web site Howard, those are some monster varieties.

 

Thank you, Billy and Hayden. I thought about naming the site Monsters R Us.

 

Howard