| Author |
 Replies: 22 / Views: 3,255 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3755 Posts |
If you read my War Nickel thread, you know I have been waiting to get a 1942 D to finish of the War Nickel portion of my Dansco. Well, we went by the store tonight and picked it up from the safe    (he lets us put coins in the safe and pay as we can. Gotta love guys like this. He yells at us if we dont go in or email him at least every other week). Well, here he is: (we need a smiley of rays of sun coming from the heavens with a little smiley angel)   Yes, all of you bow to the beauty and be jealous!!  And the toning is stronger than I could capture in the pic. Its full steps and he listed it as MS65 which I find no fault in. Never thought I would pay that much for a Jefferson, but its full worth every penny. |
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
109 Posts |
I don't want to be a jerk but is that a War Nickel? |
|
Valued Member
United States
136 Posts |
*commence drooling*
That's quite the Jefferson you've got there, congratulations on the find! Personally, I adore modern coins, and I feel like most coin collectors don't give them enough credit. They hold just as much beauty as any other coin, in my opinion.
P.S. Nice picture!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4897 Posts |
Very nice! Not sure I would go MS65. Too many bag hits IMHO. Looks very late die state. Also are no silver 42's considered War Nickels? |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
3755 Posts |
dmag, not being a jerk at all. Some folks consider only the silver nickels to be War Nickels. I wrap them in considering we were at war. They just hadnt changed the composition until part way throught the year. So yeah, I consider them to be War Nickels. Nic, with the exception of the last few years, I agree. The extremely low relief they are using now looks like gunk IMO. Not to mention the new Jeff is unattractive. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
12815 Posts |
Nice coin! Far, far better than most '42s (and any 42 I have), but there are some spots, scratches and wear on the obverse (not unlike /my/ face). I was scratching my head until you clarified your definition of War Nickel. :) Good looking coin, and a great addition to your collection. Congrats! How are you going to keep/preserve/conserve/display? |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1150 Posts |
I like the obverse but I LOVE that reverse! Very cool.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Egypt
3470 Posts |
very beautiful ..... congratulations  |
|
Valued Member
United States
135 Posts |
Very nice, congrats on complete the set.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10284 Posts |
42 D nickels in circulation are fairly common and inexpensive BUT YOUR 1942 D is a swell addition to your collection. A key date in uncirculated and a very nice original coin at that. Something to be proud of. Congrats!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3540 Posts |
VERY nice. Thanks for sharing.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
187862 Posts |
Beautiful!  Quote:Also are no silver 42's considered War Nickels? In my opinion, yes. While they are not the "wartime silver alloy" like the other " War Nickels" they are still historically significant since they were minted during the war. That being said, the 1942 plain is also a War Nickel by that definition. By including the two Cu-Ni 1942 nickels, one sees the affect of the war on our monetary composition (a necessitated alloy change for the war effort). |
|
Valued Member
United States
155 Posts |
I remember that coin. It was in my hand for a brief time before someone swoooped in and grabbed it from me.
;)
|
|
Valued Member
United States
297 Posts |
Very nice coin. I also got confused when I first saw the location of the mint mark.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4897 Posts |
Quote:Quote: Also are no silver 42's considered War Nickels? In my opinion, yes. While they are not the "wartime silver alloy" like the other " War Nickels" they are still historically significant since they were minted during the war. That being said, the 1942 plain is also a War Nickel by that definition. By including the two Cu-Ni 1942 nickels, one sees the affect of the war on our monetary composition (a necessitated alloy change for the war effort). While I understand the logic it seems that line of thought could extend to the absurd. 1950-1953 = Korean War Nickels, 1967-1973 = Vietnam War Nickels, 1990-91 = Gulf War Nickels etc... etc... ad infinitum. Infact Nickels now are War on Terror Nickels?   Edited by amida17
12/09/2011 2:06 pm
|
|
Moderator
United States
187862 Posts |
Sure, why not. If they are in your collection, call them what you want.  I think my point was missed. It was in the context of WWII, which had an affect on the alloy of our five cent piece. Since no alloy change was required for the other wars mentioned, it is not as significant (in my opinion). Another example of the war context is a set I used to see (probably by Littleton or someone similar; I will try to find one) that had "Wartime Pennies" as the subject. The 1942 "original" alloy, the 1943 steel cents, and the 1944~1945 "cartridge case" cents (which were also minted in 1946). Yes, the wartime nickels are best described as those using the silver alloy, but if someone wants to build a wartime nickel set, they are free to include the non-silver 1942 nickels as well. After, it is their set, right? Yes, I can, too...  |
| |
Replies: 22 / Views: 3,255 |
Posted 12/09/2011 01:08 am
