| Author |
 Replies: 27 / Views: 7,846 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1053 Posts |
Hello. I am interested in purchasing an 1883 Racketeer Nickel, but have come across a dilemma. Is there any way of knowing if a racketeer nickel is truly genuine? I know Littleton Coin Co. offers "Racketeer Nickels" but they just plated their own 1883 no cents nickels, making it in my opinion "not genuine." I have no idea how one would tell, or if it is even possible, a nickel that was actually used back in 1880's as a $5 gold piece vs. a no cents nickel that was plated in gold yesterday.  thank you for all your help.  |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1195 Posts |
If memory serves, Racketeer Nickels are gold plated in the sense that gold leaf was applied to them and was made to stick to the coin long enough for it to pass as a $5. This "plating" wore off easy. Not sure how that would help you.  I'm curious as well. Edited by argentum
07/18/2013 5:54 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3486 Posts |
I believe my example to be as real as it gets.
(I cannot send a picture as something is stuck)
The wear on the high points reveals the original surface
while the background remains gold in color. I believe this to be one of several things to look for.
A dealer friend of mine showed me his. The only gold color remained around the stars on the obverse.
Also, reeding on the edge is not necessary in a real example, but would be nice to have.
My example resides in my Barber Nickel collection in one of the blank openings.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8515 Posts |
I was always told that the real ones had to have reeding in order to have been passed off.
Oregon coin geek.....*** GO BEAVS ! ! ! ***
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3486 Posts |
argentum,
If memory serves, the term "gold wash" is appropriate.
Plating would BOND to the metal whereas a WASH would just coat the coin for a short time as you wrote.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3486 Posts |
And here is the picture:   |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1080 Posts |
You're looking for a nickel that was in new or near-new condition when it was plated. So, like matthewvincent's coin, the gold should be worn off the high spots. There should not be much wear beneath the gold (that is, if there is good intact plating over worn hair, that's a bad sign). I believe some vintage nickels were plated, some were not. I believe companies have been plating and painting no-cent V nickels for probably about 80 years to sell to hobbyists, so it's tough to verify that an example came from the 1880's. I would love to have a reeded one. |
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Tough call, and very subjective. Matthew Vincent's coin has the classic earmarks of a real one, and I'd be optimistic about it, but the only way I'd trust a purchase is if it came from someone I'd consider an expert in the genre. Rough reeding is another good sign, but not all "originals" had it and some contemporaries do as well.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
154 Posts |
Sounds like what Littleton is doing is very much in the spirit of the original racketeers were up to, trying to pass something off as more valuable than it really is, and if that doesn't make it an authentic racketeer nickel, I don't know what does!   On a more serious note, I hope you find a good one! |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3486 Posts |
For the record,
More than 20 years ago I started my quest to improve my nickel set. The dealer asked if I were interested in this. He said
he'd throw it in to round out the other coins that I had chosen. So I went for the group at an agreed upon price.
At the time I did not care one way or the other, but over time I have grown to study and to admire this coin
for what it MAY BE: a relic of the early 1880s gold scam.
Besides, it looks darn good in my nickel album
with a real $5 gold piece next to it. (TOUGH FIT!)
Edited by matthewvincent
07/19/2013 3:16 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1704 Posts |
The most obvious fake racketeer nickels will have a very shiny gold plating over a very worn coin. The real racketeer nickels were gold washed right from the banks and didn't have much time to circulate and get any noticeable amount of wear BEFORE they were plated. The intent was to use as little real gold on the five cent piece to maximize their profits from the scam so the plating was very thin and as was said before wore off rather quickly. Matthewvincent's coin has all of the qualities of a real one but there is no way of telling now if it truly is or not. I don't think any of the grading services would be able to difinitively attribute a gold plated no cents nickel as a racketeer. Ed ANA LM-3175 |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1053 Posts |
Thank you for all your help
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4415 Posts |
The "genuine" ones have edges that were reeded, prior to the plating. To make such "Racketeer Nickels" in that manner nowadays, and even fifty years ago, would have been cost prohibitive, methinks, considering what collectors might pay for them.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2805 Posts |
So were the edges reeded artificially to make them seem further different from the typical cupronickel smooth-edged 5-cent piece? Or were Shield nickel edges reeded, and the early Liberty nickels were reeded too, but it was dropped with the "CENTS" addition? |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
All nickel five cent pieces have had a plain edge. Some of the people making and passing racketeer nickels reeded the edge before plating to make the plated coin more closely resemble a half eagle, which did have reeded edges.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1796 Posts |
I have an article I wrote about discerning between "genuine" racketeer nickels and modern "reproductions" over on The Black Cabinet: http://fakes.numismetrica.com/2012/...c-1883-0001/Where there are some microscopic features you can take into account, matthewvincent, specksynder, and Gyrene7483 nailed the major discerning factors. Sadly in the end there's truly no way to be *certain* just likely or unlikely. :-) |
| |
Replies: 27 / Views: 7,846 |
Posted 07/18/2013 5:55 pm
