1904 Liberty Nickel With Extra Stars?

VT, I thought it could very well be a mint product when I bought it some years ago. I took it to the FUN Show, and a few error specialists said not. Yet, neither one could explain how it came to be. Your multiple strike 1904 is the only piece I've seen that's remotely similar. I've long wondered if there were others. Mine has been in the "errors box" for years. I'm hoping that this thread might bring a few more to light. I bought mine cheap, so there was no profit motive apparent.

It's pretty simple - it is a physical impossibility for a Mint die to strike letters that close to the rim. Can't happen. If the collar weren't there, it would have broadstruck, and that's the only way to shift a die any closer to the rim.

So - both coins - we know what they ain't.

Off-center strikes aren't possible with the collar in place either.

This thread and threads like it are why I joined this forum.
I am no expert on anything and know just about nothing about errors but I think I need to point something out.

On that big beautiful picture that is on like page 10. Look at the stars.

Using the ghost of the hair curl as a guide IF this coin was struck two or more times by the same die then the inner (original) star nearest the date should be the same star as the secondary star that is at its 5 oclock. Those two stars should be identicle, or as close as possible.

They are not. The seconday (outer) star at 5 oclock is (I am not sure how to say it) The angles on the 'arms' or points do not seem to match.

I know nothing but I put my dollar down on those stars coming from different dies.

We can show it to Fred in person at the FUN show. He's usually there.

I am in the 5% that it is a mint product. A partial lamination that stuck to the die and was deposited on the coin is my theory, and I will stick (no pun intended) to that.

The counterfeit/soft die theory just does not seem plausible.

But I respect everyone's theory. It is an interesting topic.

The concern is a valid one and what has not yet been postulated to the best of my knowledge is the remote possibility of an existence of a 1904 prototype nickel composed by the Mint analogous to ones resulting from a '2012 Department of Treasury/CTC Alternative Metals Study': CTC - Concurrent Technologies Corporation http://www.ctc.com/

I was unable to locate a related paper documented back in 1904 but the U.S. Mint at that time may have chronicled similar verbiage compared to the following passage taken from this CTC-assembled 2012 paper entitled:

‘2012 Biennial Report to the Congress on the Current Status of Coin Production Costs and Analysis of Alternative Content'

An applicable summarizing excerpt from this 2012 document found on the last page # 8 reads as follows:

‘II. Recommendations for Changes to Coin Composition: As we believe the CTC report makes clear, the Mint must perform additional work before it has sufficient information to recommend possible new metallic materials or technologies for the production of circulating coins. Among other things, the Mint needs to (1) conduct production-scale tests with multiple lots of proposed coin materials to verify the potential supply chains and the results from the preliminary tests described in the CTC study, and (2) further research estimated stakeholder costs associated with a change in electromagnetic signature. As a result, the Department of the Treasury recommends that the Mint continue to study the issue before endorsing any specific changes to coin composition.'

If interested, one can find this entire 2012 document at:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...CcQFjAB&url=https://www.usmint.gov/about_the_mint/PDFs/United_States_Mint_Report_2012_Biennial_Report_to_the_Congress_on_the_Current_Status_of_Coin_Production_Costs_and_Analysis_of_Alternative_Content_December_2012.pdf&ei=vw4-VJORH46oyAT33oHYCg&usg=AFQjCNEdecRjP_zqrK5jpiyZlSK03vI3Yg&sig2=zW7u53lVpcFvxFk1QQdkNg

mdpmedia

That's an interesting thought regarding non-destructive testing. To have significance, I would suggest a sample size of 6 or so "normal" nickels. A SEM analysis may help solve the mystery. Rockwell hardness testing on the "normal" nickels may be interesting to see how the hardness varies, but since it is destructive it would not be prudent to try it on the subject nickel. Seems we may be turning this thread into a science experiment, but I guess that's OK.