| Author |
 Replies: 20 / Views: 4,568 |
|
Valued Member
United States
270 Posts |
Is there a reason that it seems like there is a whole lot of 1964 nickels, actually 1964 in all coins. Every time I go looking at coins I keep finding piles of 1964's. Did they make a lot of all coins that year?
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
560 Posts |
I wondered that myself and then I bought a Whitman Jeff. nickel folder. It says that 2.8 billion nickels were minted in 1964 compared to 136.1 million nickels minted in 1965, for example. I bet you don't find many 1964 dimes and quarters in circulation because those were silver.
Edited by ichirensha
12/29/2006 7:01 pm
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
3147 Posts |
1964P at 1,024,672,000 and the 1964D at 1,787,297,160 makes it overwhelming VERY common amongest our change. I would say from 1964 to 1984 you could have won a bet with anyone if you bet them they were caring a 64 nickel. It was almost impossible NOT to find a 64 in your change!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
882 Posts |
I hate finding 1965 quarters. JUST ONE YEAR OFF! Give a guy a break... lol
|
|
Valued Member
United States
287 Posts |
quote:
actually 1964 in all coins. Every time I go looking at coins I keep finding piles of 1964's
1964 Nickels seem to be quite commom alright, but you seem to be having the good fortune to find all types of coins made in 64. Hope your luck continues. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
834 Posts |
quote:
Originally posted by Tykimeister
I hate finding 1965 quarters. JUST ONE YEAR OFF! Give a guy a break... lol
1965 66 & 67 ALSO A LOT OF THOSE QUARTERS ALSO. BRUCE |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
20753 Posts |
I still remember back in the late 60's and early 70's when I used to have fun betting people that if they had more than one Nickel in their possesion it would be 1964. I used to bet coffee at work on that. I think I won about 80% of the time. Most people would go nuts trying to figure "how did he know that"? Then I noticed starting about the mid 80's that no longer worked so I stopped with the betting. My averages were dropping.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
3730 Posts |
I could be wrong but wasn't that the time where silver coins were done away with, and for some reason the mint continued cranking out 1964 dated coins well into 1965?
Can't remember the thinking behind it, but I'm sure the 1964 date was carried on into 1965.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
560 Posts |
I was two years old in 1964 and I kept telling my parents to save all the silver they came in contact with but they ignored me like they still do today.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2177 Posts |
Go through those nickels before using them. There is a rare error in the 1964 nickel. Pluribus was accidentally spelled with a d instead of a b on some of these nickels. Then they attempted to remove the d and replace it with the correct letter, B. It is still visible on the error nickels but difficult to see.  |
|
Valued Member
 United States
270 Posts |
wow I never knew that bout the mistake on the nickels. good to know since I have like 14$ in 1964's alone. and yeah I was thinking it was 1964 with the quarters but your right its like always the 65 or 66. I was collecting them for a while cause htey were older then when I realised there was a never ending limit of them I quit. I never relized at first though that I kept getting those years till I went back and looked at them when I really got into the collecting coins
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
834 Posts |
quote:
Originally posted by thingee
Go through those nickels before using them. There is a rare error in the 1964 nickel. Pluribus was accidentally spelled with a d instead of a b on some of these nickels. Then they attempted to remove the d and replace it with the correct letter, B. It is still visible on the error nickels but difficult to see.
got a picture of that error by chance |
|
Valued Member
United States
397 Posts |
quote:
Originally posted by thingee
Go through those nickels before using them. There is a rare error in the 1964 nickel. Pluribus was accidentally spelled with a d instead of a b on some of these nickels. Then they attempted to remove the d and replace it with the correct letter, B. It is still visible on the error nickels but difficult to see.
Found This: "A rarity that can be easily overlooked is the 1964-D, Breen #2758. It's listed as the 1964-D PLURIDUS, Very Scarce. In 1964 the U.S. Mint polished and reworked the reverse die to remove die clash marks (marks that most commonly appear in the field of subsequent strikes after the obverse and reverse dies have contacted each other when there was no planchet to receive the respective strike). Despite the good intentions of removing the clash marks, mint worker polished the reverse die field so much that the center of the B in E PLURIBUS UNUM was polished off. Thus, it appears that the word PLURIBUS is instead PLURIDUS. The R and I are far apart. The right uprights of U's are thin. Reviewing an unsearched bag of 5000 common Jeffersons yielded one of this variety." For what it is worth..... MM  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2177 Posts |
Thanks for the specifics MorganMan. b I don't own any of these nickels Bruce 1947, but now everyone knows who does!!!  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4589 Posts |
quote:
Originally posted by Tykimeister
I hate finding 1965 quarters. JUST ONE YEAR OFF! Give a guy a break... lol
Ahhh look at those very Carfully for Silver struck 1965 of course that was a mistake, but otherwise I would agree with you!!! |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4589 Posts |
quote:
Originally posted by morganman
quote:
Originally posted by thingee
Go through those nickels before using them. There is a rare error in the 1964 nickel. Pluribus was accidentally spelled with a d instead of a b on some of these nickels. Then they attempted to remove the d and replace it with the correct letter, B. It is still visible on the error nickels but difficult to see.
Found This:
"A rarity that can be easily overlooked is the 1964-D, Breen #2758. It's listed as the 1964-D PLURIDUS, Very Scarce.
In 1964 the U.S. Mint polished and reworked the reverse die to remove die clash marks (marks that most commonly appear in the field of subsequent strikes after the obverse and reverse dies have contacted each other when there was no planchet to receive the respective strike).
Despite the good intentions of removing the clash marks, mint worker polished the reverse die field so much that the center of the B in E PLURIBUS UNUM was polished off. Thus, it appears that the word PLURIBUS is instead PLURIDUS.
The R and I are far apart. The right uprights of U's are thin. Reviewing an unsearched bag of 5000 common Jeffersons yielded one of this variety."
For what it is worth.....
MM
YEP. I sure love My Breen!!! |
| |
Replies: 20 / Views: 4,568 |
Posted 12/29/2006 6:44 pm
