1913 V Nickel......

[SethChandler-migration]

So I was flipping around the Eliasberg collection catalogue last night and I came to the 1913 V nickel and I noticed that it looked brilliant, very reflective. I have never seen this coin in person but I have seen two of the four known. The Bebee ANA coin, which was graded by NGC as PF55, appeared to me at least rather dull and matte like in quality.....even for a very lightly circulated proof. The PCGS Reed Hawn PR64 I had the pleasure of viewing at an ANA show sometime around 15 years ago. It appears MUCH better than the PF55 coin, but to me it just doesn't seem as nearly reflective as the Eliasberg coin. My question is how can you have such wide varriences in the quality of manufacture for a coin where there was ONLY five struck? Is this common for great rarities? If you examined all the Class III 1804 Dollars would there be a difference in the consistency of the manufacture? Grading excluded.

 

Since NGC had graded two of the four known perhaps they can shed some light on the topic?

And a forum member owns the Hawn coin, and I bet they have looked at all three up close, unlike me.

 

Any observations?

 

Seth

[Tradedollarnut]

It's my understanding that only two of the coins had prooflike surfaces, the other three did not. The Reed Hawn coin is definitely darker and more matte like than the Eliasberg coin. It has slightly reflective surfaces and very, very light hairlines in places, well concealed by the toning. The Eliasberg coin is bright and flashy by comparison, but in person seems somewhat washed out and the hairlines in the right obverse field more pronounced. I have not seen the ANA coin and I wasn't able to inspect the Smithsonian coin up close and don't remember much about it.

 

WRT the variance in quality... well, we really don't know the exact circumstances behind the minting of the coins. It's certainly possible that a few were struck before the dies were polished and a few more later on - after finishing of the dies. Your guess is as good as mine!

[MarkFeld]

Seth, I believe that I have viewed three of the 1913 Liberty Nickels, including the Eliasberg piece, which I got to see "up close and personal" when I worked at NGC.

 

I don't recall thinking that any of them were brilliant and fully reflective, as a regular proof example of another date would be. They simply weren't made with the same degree of care.

 

In theory, your point should be correct - if a very small number of coins are struck in a short time span, the quality of strike and mirrors, etc., should be similar, absent post striking considerations.

 

In the case of the 1804 Dollars, however, the different classes were supposedly not all struck in the same time period.

[TomB]

My thoughts on the surface variations on these pieces echoes what TDN has already written. That is, as far as I know, these were a clandestine issue that, as far as I am concerned, are not even a US Mint product in that they were made without explicit Mint authorization. I know this is off-topic, but, for this reason I have never even had an interest in this issue. It feels too much like paying exhorbitant money for a counterfeit issue. As for the coins(?) that were made, the circumstances are not completely known. Could it have been that some were made at one point and the rest at another point? If this is the case then it would seem like a possibility that the planchets were different and/or the care and preparation was different. By the way, I'm not slamming anyone who owns one of these or who thinks they are cool; I'm just giving my opinion on them and providing a reason for it.

[EVillageProwler]

The Class III 1804 dollars are an odd breed and perhaps falls outside of this topic because they are supposedly Class II specimens that have been "re-edged" to fool the authorities who want to confiscate the coins.

 

The Class II specimens were illegal to own because they were creations of the Midnight Minters during the 1850's and 1860's. I believe they were struck with a plain edge. When the authorities came to confiscate them, the clever owners of the contraband product had the edges re-struck to resemble lettered edges. (I could have the edge issue reverse vis-a-vis the two classes in question.)

 

I would expect a high degree of qualitative variance from the Class II specimens and even more so from the Class III specimens.

 

EVP

 

[DWLange]

I've examined all four of the extant 1913 Liberty Nickels, and none of them look like regular proofs of 1883-1912. The Eliasberg coin is the most pristine, and it has just semi-reflective fields. I would describe it as satin proof, rather than brilliant proof. The Reed Hawn specimen has the same finish, but it is not as pristine. The Bebee specimen, now in the ANA Museum, is an impaired proof and not at all attractive. The Norweb coin, now held by the Smithsonian, is somewhat reflective but needs conservation work. It has some kind of film on its surfaces that gives off "soap bubble" colors when turned under a light.

[BankNote1]

I remember seeing the Bebee 1913 nickel, I guess 30 years ago. It did have a rather dull gray look to it. There wasn't any mint lustre at all to the coin, if I remember correctly.

[SethChandler-migration]

Thanks for the replys. David, have you seen alot of variations of the ClassIII 1804 Dollar?

 

I've learned more about the condition of all 1913 V Nickels in this one thread than anywhere else!

 

Seth

[mark]

David Lange said that he examined all 4 extant 1913 Liberty nickels. I am well aware of the fact that the location of only 4 of the coins is known and that the 5th coin is rumored to have been lost in an auto accident in the 1960s. But I have also read suggestions that in truth there were only 4 1913 Liberty nickels and that the 5th piece was perhaps made from a different metal. I forget where I read that rumor. But, can anyone here vouch for actually seeing the missing coin in person before it went missing? Or can anyone here state with certainty that there were actually 5 1913 Liberty nickels struck?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Mark

[gmarguli]

David Lange said that he examined all 4 extant 1913 Liberty nickels. I am well aware of the fact that the location of only 4 of the coins is known and that the 5th coin is rumored to have been lost in an auto accident in the 1960s. But I have also read suggestions that in truth there were only 4 1913 Liberty nickels and that the 5th piece was perhaps made from a different metal. I forget where I read that rumor. But, can anyone here vouch for actually seeing the missing coin in person before it went missing? Or can anyone here state with certainty that there were actually 5 1913 Liberty nickels struck?

 

That off-metal 1913 V nickel is supposedly actually a Buffalo nickel.

 

I thought that I read somewhere of all 5 being displayed at the same time, but I might be mistaken.

 

"Missing" is also a term that very well might be incorrect. Who says that it isn't sitting in a collection right now - where the owner knows that people think it is missing, but he has no desire for the publicity? Isn't the 1933 Saint "missing"? I don't know who owns it, do you? It's missing!

[johnscoin-migration]

Eric P. Newman can vouch for all 5 specimens. He was offered them before they were divided up when Col. Green owned them I believe. However, the 5th coin definitely existed, it's just unsure if it was truly lost in that traffic accident or not. That one could have been a counterfeit, but no one really knows. There could have been a 6th one, as there were 6 slots in the presentation case, but it is said by Mr. Newman that there was a Buffalo Nickel in the case of the 1913 date...so yes, all 5 have been vouched for, but who knows where number 5 is...

[DWLange]

I've been on the road a lot lately, with more to come in a few days, so I'm late replying to some of these messages.

 

I've spoken with Eric about this matter a number of times, and he still owns the presentation case that once held the 1913 Liberty Nickels. It has eight depressions to hold nickels, and the breakdown was as follows:

 

(5) 1913 Liberty Head Nickels of slightly varying finishes

(1) 1913 Type 1 Buffalo Nickel proof without desinger's initial (pattern coin)

(1) same, with initial

(1) 1913 Type 2 in cent alloy, darkly toned (this one is illustrated in my nickel book)

[classicalman-migration]

Assuming all things were "equal" in the "minting" of these coins, (strike pressure, prep of the die faces, etc) , could the variance of the coins be due to the quality of the planchet's surface before striking? Would it be possible in the making of these that a handful of planchets were grabbed and loaded into the feed hopper? I could see where one could get a big difference in surface quality by just grabbing a bunch out of a barrel (?) and putting them into the press. I assume all are struck equally well, else someone would have mentioned it. ??

 

[lclugza]

I recall talking to Mark Borchardt of Bowers And Merena about the 1913 Liberty nickel. He said they were "semi-proofs," as I remember, so that echoes Mark Feld and David Lange's comments about them not exactly being fully Proof. I have heard the Liberty nickel proofs are generally more brilliant and less cameo than other Proofs of their era- does anyone know if, and if so why, this is so?

[PQSeated]

Did Eric tell you who he sold the coins to? Does he know where the fifth coin is?

[GDJMSP]

Assuming all things were "equal" in the "minting" of these coins, (strike pressure, prep of the die faces, etc) , could the variance of the coins be due to the quality of the planchet's surface before striking? Would it be possible in the making of these that a handful of planchets were grabbed and loaded into the feed hopper? I could see where one could get a big difference in surface quality by just grabbing a bunch out of a barrel (?) and putting them into the press. I assume all are struck equally well, else someone would have mentioned it. ??

 

 

When it comes to the differences in the coins - they are quite noticable between the Proofs and UNCs. And not just the surface of the coins. Many of the die characteristics are quite different. Perhaps one of the most easily seen differences is in the lettering of E PLURIBUS UNUM.

 

With the Proof examples the first U in PLURIBUS has serifs that overlap each other and the serif on the right is above the end of the serif on the left. With the 2nd U in PLURIBUS there is a similar detail. Only this time it is the serif on the left that overlaps and is above the serif on the right. The same is true of the 1st U in UNUM. Only with the 2nd U in UNUM are the two serifs even in height but still almost touching. And the vertical line of the B in PLURIBUS appears to have been doubled.

 

With other years of Liberty Proofs I have not seen similar details like these except in the '86 - and then it is only apparent in the first U of PLURIBUS. In later years I have not seen them at all.

 

So while it is only my opinion - it appears that someone deliberately made dies for these coins. So I would think it unlikely that the differences were the result of just grabbing a handful of planchets and striking the coins.

 

With the UNC versions of the coins none of these details are present. The serifs of the U's are straight & even and cleanly seperated in the center. And there is no doubling in the B.

 

These details are easily seen just by examing the published pictutes of the coins.

 

 

[Leothelion]

Not to start a rumer but I think the janitor did it. He had too because he was most likely the last guy to lock up. The planchets where in his dustpan and being there all alone that night, well.......I sure you can figure out the rest of the story.

This would explain why the 4 to 5 coins look different, for the guy who made them really didn't know heck he was doing. Although someone did manage to

start the machine and had access to the 1913 dies........well....someone could have left them in the press for chris'sakes.....that's how I think it happen.

 

Actually, didn't someone from the outside con someone on the inside to make them? There's your answer........it was too dark inside for the guy to see what he was doing because the lights were out. Does that make sense?

 

Leo

 

[gmarguli]

Not to start a rumer but I think the janitor did it. He had too because he was most likely the last guy to lock up. The planchets where in his dustpan and being there all alone that night, well.......I sure you can figure out the rest of the story.

This would explain why the 4 to 5 coins look different, for the guy who made them really didn't know heck he was doing. Although someone did manage to start the machine and had access to the 1913 dies........well....someone could have left them in the press for chris'sakes.....that's how I think it happen.

 

 

Interesting thought, but he wouldn't have had access to the dies, since they weren't made. It was known that there was no need for the 1913 Liberty nickels. Whoever made these had to know how to made the dies.

[lclugza]

The dies were intended for the regular Proof coinage, for it was thought for a while the Buffalo design might not be ready at the start of 1913. Some 1913 Liberty obverse dies had already been sent to San Francisco in anticipation of a possible 1913 Liberty nickel there, but these were never used; these dies were eventually returned to Philadelphia and destroyed. Apparently the clandestine minters never really polished the dies properly, resulting in the "semi-proof" look.

[Legend-migration]

Everyone will have their chance to see something special at the Baltimore ANA Show this summer. Barring any problems, I believe ALL four 1913 Nickels WILL be on display!

 

It will be the first time in over 50 years they will all be together. ( I LOVE the icons)