2005 5 Cent Victory Nickel With Heavily Frosted/Matte Reverse, Normal?

I see your point with the cup holder coins for sure, but again with that answer just raises more questions, the best of my knowledge I have learned that coins soaked/sitting in any type of acid would generally turn the surface porous and eat at the metals surface and not turn it sparkly/shiny and not add extra metal, witch this coin has, witch is why I thought maybe an un-polished die.

Also since you pointed out the elephant in the room and mentioned "mules" I am obviously not going to jump the gun and call this a mule until I have sufficient research/opinions to suggest that, although it has been sitting at the back of my mind after I did the acetone test, mules have been found in the past where they shouldn't be just like you pointed out with the 2010 10 cent mule found in the Young Wildlife Set (im assuming is the coin you are referring to) so I'm keeping that option open as well... for now anyways.

Alan, exactly what I was thinking. I knew planchets weren't "pre-frosted", it was the die that had the matte/frosting finish added I also know they had the 2005 Nickel with 3 different designs/finishes, one being the normal 2005 Beaver, the 2005 Victory and the Silver 2005 Victory nickel with the matte/frosted Reverse.

So given the fact there are 3 different nickels in the same year and and the silver one showing the matte/frosting on the Reverse I think it could be very possible they had some what of a mix up and frosted the wrong die (a non silver 2005 Victory nickel Reverse die) or something along those lines creating a 3rd version of the 2005 victory nickel (mule). Things like this have happened before with the same scenario, there is always the possibility that the mint thought people would think/assume the exact same thing everyone else did at first and pass it off as just damage or wear due to the low mintage of the "mule", why bother saying anything if nobody notices. We are only human, we make errors and sometimes they go completely un-noticed, but again this is only my opinion and theory, which there are many possibilities.

I do try to educate myself the best I can and I do respect and take opinions/input for what they are usually without any concern because they are usually valid but sometimes you just have to ask these things or you will never know.

john100, valid point. But what gets me is the "Almost all" part, now if you said All mules that have been found were already publicized and accounted for then I would be all aboard with the damage theory. But it seems like with every answer just provides even more questions... Which as you can tell doesn't seem to end with a reasonable outcome really for anyone, I know there are a lot of people on this forum that are well educated (like yourself) yet every educated answer seems to come back with an equally educated question.

When a mule is found there are 3 main questions I would be asking if I had found one, How was it made, Why was it made and who do you even contact in regards to asking these types of questions, let alone someone that can determine its legitimacy.

When the first (or any) mule was found, how was it found? circulation? a BU roll? or did the mint just come right out and say hey, we kinda messed up so look out for "this" coin in your change...

i may not be a coin expert but I do have experience finding many damaged coins from the environment during my times metal detecting, I have a background in the mechanics industry as well which has shown me my fair share of cup holder coins while detailing (obviously putting them back where I found them) or pulling parts from a scrap yard which a friend of the family owns so I got to go through all the cars growing up and even during then I've never came across damage that could make a coin look like it has a sparkling frosted finish, if anything cup holder coins or acid damaged coins would be very dull, corroded and or very porous.

Like I mentioned before, the victory nickel is really not something on my "look for" list by any means, but this thing popped out at me as soon as it came out of the roll, in the light it sparkles just like a frosted finish, feels just like a frosted finish and looks just like one, microscopic details with die chip like bumps and all... an I'm sure most of you guys know the saying when it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it usually is a duck. But I never mentioned it being a mule until it was brought up but I guess I will never really know until someone else finds one because even if it were to turn out to be a mule, I highly doubt I will ever find a second one in circulation to compare it too. So I am stuck with my many questions and theory's until myself or someone else can provide further proof to back it all up, that is just my honest respectful opinion.

No I do not, that is why I asked and said is it possible. I just assumed that if they can accidentally frost the reverse of a 2010 dime, why would it not be "possible" for this same thing to happen to a nickel... however way it was done. Which to a somewhat uneducated collector (like my self) would find to be an appropriate question since I did not know.


Edit: I would also like to add that I never said this was a mule, the whole mule talk was brought up by someone other than myself and I was simply adding it to the endless possibilities regarding this coin. I do not and would not want to claim something that is false or not proven just on a whim, but I will ask questions as that is what this forum is for is it not?... I'm sorry if my questions/answers annoy some or seem like dumb questions as that is not my intentions, but if I don't ask then I will never know and if you seen this coin in hand you MAY have a change of mind just like I did regarding if it were just simply damage or not. Pictures do not do this coin any justice and that is just my humble honest opinion.

That was another thing I did not cover yet, I had questions about that as well, I knew that proof dies had frosted devices and not fields and my question was going to be could a die have a frosted field mistakenly (another thing I do not know). This coin may not be a mule and I'm perfectly fine with that but it does have a frosted finish for whatever reason it may be and I just cant see how this happened after the mint, again damage does not add metal onto a coins surface, damage wont leave microscopic die chips all over a surface of a coin, acid and other chemicals that could eat at a coins surface would typically look dull, corroded and porous, so I'm just going to say I THINK something happened regarding the reverse die and I could totally be wrong but I wont learn if I don't ask.

Thank you for that john100, I just want everyone to know I do appreciate all opinions, I really have learned a lot from you guys (especially john100 & DBM) while I have been on this forum and I really hope my questions and comments don't offend anyone as I have a lot of respect for these guy's, but sometimes you just gotta ask so that you can better educate yourself which is what I am trying to do, no one claimed or implied this to be a mule but the word was thrown out there and I was simply going a long with the possibility, although I never thought it was in the first place as my questions are regarding the finish, not if it were a mule.

I am a Canadian coin guy, and our coins are different. You would have to rub pretty darn hard (usually by dry rubbing) to do that to pure nickel, or nickel-plated coins... if your Q-tips are clean, and the coin is relatively clean, a gentle acetone wipe on a nickel surface is pretty safe.