Tweet
Pulled another anomaly from my small stash of three cent nickels. I believe this one is listed ad 1866B 14b.
-
-
Is this a variety? The first 6 is reduced in size compared to the second 6, similar to MD. Weird.All opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by willbrooks or his affiliates. Taking them may result in serious side effects. Results may vary. Offer not valid in New Jersey. -
I'm going by page 146 of the treatise linked by Petespockets in his post.Comment
-
All opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by willbrooks or his affiliates. Taking them may result in serious side effects. Results may vary. Offer not valid in New Jersey.Comment
-
Great. Baby steps. Now ask yourself why would that be?
Hint: there is no such thing as a "normal design" when digits are punched by hand. Just like mint marks before 1989. Every single one is different. There is no normal. They are weak, they are strong, they are all over the place, they are bigger, they are smaller, they are tilted, they are doubled, tripled, whatever!!!! They are ****ing snowflakes, no two are the same. There is no normal.
Every die you look at will have a different looking date. If your reference source doesn't explain that to you, then why do you listen to them. Jim syndrome.Last edited by willbrooks; 05-28-2024, 04:53 PM.All opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by willbrooks or his affiliates. Taking them may result in serious side effects. Results may vary. Offer not valid in New Jersey.Comment
-
I used "normal" for lacking a better word under the circumstances. But if what you say is true (and I believe it is) then why do you base your response on the difference between the two sixes?Comment
-
Just because PCGS says something doesn't make it true.Last edited by willbrooks; 05-29-2024, 06:20 AM.All opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by willbrooks or his affiliates. Taking them may result in serious side effects. Results may vary. Offer not valid in New Jersey.Comment
-
Not cleaned, right? But it's Rick Snow. https://www.ebay.com/itm/18644383215...mis&media=COPYAll opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by willbrooks or his affiliates. Taking them may result in serious side effects. Results may vary. Offer not valid in New Jersey.Comment
-
And they stole $188 from me that I'm calling the police about.All opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by willbrooks or his affiliates. Taking them may result in serious side effects. Results may vary. Offer not valid in New Jersey.Comment
-
I have to agree with both of you. It is in the reference book and it does resemble MD.
But there are definitely some Lincolns that are designated a DDO with the same MD look to them, to me. (1935 comes to mind).
This may be why they require more than one specimen to officially recognize new varieties in this series, to rule out MD.
BTW- Your coin has some killer markers with 9(?) die cracks on the reverse. I'm surprised it is only a "c" stage.
FWIW- One thing I noticed on the first 6 on almost all coins that year, was that it has kind of a "flat" spot to the top curve.
The author goes into detail about die pairs and anomalies on master dies and so on. It gets pretty detailed. There is a lot of info to digest.
Here is a sample of information from page 44:
"...RMD#1 was used to manufacture every reverse working hub. Consequently Class C Longacre Doubling is visible on the reverse of every Three Cent Nickel struck from 1865 to 1889 depending upon the specific amount of polishing performed on each reverse working die. ..." (RMD#1 is Reverse Master Die #1)
(Interesting information about imparting the dates onto the dies occur in the last paragraph at the bottom of page 19.)
ps. Yep, I'm rambling some.Comment
Comment