| Author |
 Replies: 18 / Views: 1,356 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
98637 Posts |
Well the first 9 looks normal, the 4 is fat, and the second 9 is not as fat. It is possible that the 4 and last 9 took a hit and the hit was uneven and smashed the 4 a little bit more.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3207 Posts |
that 4 might look less fat without grime around it, but will still likely be oversized
|
|
Pillar of the Community
  United States
6602 Posts |
 PCGS CoinFacts vs. this coin. Although getting it precisely to scale is the skill of others on this forum. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6602 Posts |
Quote:
that 4 might look less fat without grime around it, but will still likely be oversized I agree. I will plunk it into the acetone jar when I take the dog for a walk. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Good grief. You think there was a "Large 4" variety to start with, is that right?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3207 Posts |
hmm, the last 9 also looks fatter than the PCGS example, let's see what acetone''s gunk removal does
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6602 Posts |
Quote:
Good grief. You think there was a "Large 4" variety to start with, is that right? No, frog, I do not. All I have is a nickel with an unusually large 4, and I am curious to know if there is a reasonable conclusion we can reach about it. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6602 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10048 Posts |
The 4 was flattened by a hit - look at how small the internal triangle of the 4 is compared to the regular one you posted a picture of. Look at the base of the flattened 4 and compare to the normal one. Also see how the last 9 in the date also has a flattened tail on it. This is PMD. It took a hit in that area. |
|
Valued Member
United States
178 Posts |
very nice pics brandmeister. the comparison pic really shows that the 4 AND the second 9 are fatter, i.e., smooshed.
Edited by shathe
07/24/2023 9:49 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
450 Posts |
Quote:
smooshed I was wondering what the technical term was for that.  |
|
Valued Member
United States
178 Posts |
Quote:
I was wondering what the technical term was for that. very useful technical term. I use it all the time, especially when I take my bananas out of the bag after I get home from the store... |
|
Moderator
United States
98637 Posts |
Quote:
All I have is a nickel with an unusually large 4, and I am curious to know if there is a reasonable conclusion we can reach about it I said it up above and I'll say it again, the first 9 looks normal, the 4 is fat, and the second 9 fatter than the first, but not as fat as the 4. This tells me that the 4 and 9 took a hit and flattened them out - more so in the 4 then the second 9. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3207 Posts |
since hits happen routinely and can squash devices, I have to agree that's the most likely cause of the fat 4 and 9, other evidence of the hit could have been smoothed away by subsequent circulation
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6602 Posts |
I think that smooshed, and then smoothed by circulation is the most sensible theory. Thanks for the ideas, guys.
The little window and thick stem on the 4 were interesting, though. That same phenomenon was also visible on 1949 5c WDDO-001. But the Class V pivot hub double was clearly visible on all four digits of 1949. That just doesn't line up with this particular nickel. A theory worth considering, even though we have ultimately discarded it.
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 18 / Views: 1,356 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 07/24/2023 6:33 pm
