| Author |
 Replies: 10 / Views: 1,033 |
|
|
New Member
United States
1 Posts |
I'm looking for a 1966D Jefferson nickel and a 1967D Jefferson nickel. Not sure if they even exist. I've looked all over and can't find them. Any help would be appreciated. Thank You in Advance. George email removed
See Rules |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
6574 Posts |
They don't exist. In order to discourage coin collectors and hoarding, the Mint stopped using mint marks from 1965-1967. Nickels were still produced in Denver during that time, but they simply didn't have mint marks, and are indistinguishable from a no-mint-mark Philadelphia coin of the same era.
The mint also stopped striking proof coins during that time, although they released Special Mint Set (SMS) coins with a nicer finish in special packaging.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
189767 Posts |
 to the Community! Your post was moved to the appropriate forum for the proper attention.  |
|
New Member
 United States
1 Posts |
WOW! Thanks for the reply! I have my father's collection and he has some Library of coins books with missing coins. I'm just trying to complete them. You just saved me a bunch of time. Thanks Again, George
|
|
Moderator
United States
15544 Posts |
to the CCF Take a look at my other hobby ... http://www.jk-dk.art |
|
Moderator
United States
98114 Posts |
Brand is very correct on that. I'll just add that the same applies to ALL denominations for those years. no mint marks from any of the 3 mints in order to prevent coin hoarding following the cessation of the silver produced coins. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
75053 Posts |
Quote:
They don't exist. In order to discourage coin collectors and hoarding, the Mint stopped using mint marks from 1965-1967. Nickels were still produced in Denver during that time, but they simply didn't have mint marks, and are indistinguishable from a no-mint-mark Philadelphia coin of the same era.
The mint also stopped striking proof coins during that time, although they released Special Mint Set (SMS) coins with a nicer finish in special packaging. Learned something new today. Thank you Brandmeister.  Errers and Varietys.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6574 Posts |
Glad to be of service.
Dearborn brings up an interesting point. The Mint's concern was specifically around the silver to clad transition for dimes and quarters (and 90% to 40% silver for halves). Nickels were just a casualty of their strategy to discourage hoarding. I guess it would have been strange to remove mint marks on some denominations and not others.
I believe the Mint was still recovering from annoyance and somewhat unwarranted suspicion after the 1950-D nickel mania, where everybody and his mother was stashing rolls of 1950-D nickels. They still sell for silly prices compared to their rarity.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4233 Posts |
I never understood the logic behind not putting mint marks on 1965-1967 coins. Everybody knew 1964 and earlier was silver and the newer coins weren't. Why would a mint mark matter? I still get 1965 coins in change, especially quarters.
|
|
Moderator
United States
189767 Posts |
Quote:
Why would a mint mark matter? Because people collected one per mint, so three coins taken out of circulation per collector per year. Remove the mint mark and you reduced collector demand by two thirds. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6574 Posts |
The 1950-D nickel had nothing going for it beyond low mintage. People hoarded them aggressively.
The Mint had two problems in 1965. They wanted silver and clad to circulate side-by-side. It was probably already becoming apparent that many citizens were pulling every silver coin they could find due to climbing silver prices. If collectors started pulling all the 1965 clad coins as well, because they were a first year coin, that could cause a serious coinage shortage for dimes and quarters.
I think it's important to keep in mind that these situations could resemble bank runs and tulip manias. It doesn't take a huge reduction in the supply to spark a craze. The first day that people and businesses couldn't get coins at the bank counter to buy train tickets, groceries, and smokes from vending machines, that could trigger enough widespread hoarding to cause a real economic problem. Insufficient circulating currency is a bizarre phenomenon, and the Mint probably just wanted to reduce the hazard any way possible.
Also don't underestimate political pressure. There was some bad blood over the 1950-D fiasco. A Mint director who was asked about the dangers by Congress, and then didn't take every step to reduce the perceived danger (no matter how distant or silly), would lose their cushy job in a heartbeat.
|
| |
Replies: 10 / Views: 1,033 |
|
Posted 01/29/2024 08:30 am
