| Author |
 Replies: 31 / Views: 3,234 |
|
New Member
United States
37 Posts |
Oddly enough I know where this nickel has been since I got it from bank in 2006. Please request any different pictures and I'll make it happen. So; 2006 P Jefferson nickel on left 1996 nickel on right is strictly for lighting comparison. 2006 is about 20% thicker, normal diameter Its just that the reverse is completely dull in color. No shiny! The front is completely. I am trying to find another '06 to more accurately compare. It has no other errors as far as I can tell. Its not from circulation nor has it been anywhere 'odd' since 2006. I don't know how to define this exactly. I'd love some help please. I've looked everywhere and can't seem to define exactly what official branding I can use for this irregularity. And thank you   |
|
|
|
New Member
 United States
37 Posts |
And heres the obverse image. Any thoughts? None of either image is worn. Please let me know if you'd prefer better images. Thanks again. Its been bugging me forever and I can't find anything quite like it and don't know enough terminology to search Google effectively.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2775 Posts |
May like to see the edges side by side for thickness you mentioned. May want to check the weight as well.
Edited by Halo1st
04/24/2014 10:38 pm
|
|
New Member
United States
37 Posts |
Someone just handed me another '06 P so heres edge on and another comparison.   |
|
New Member
United States
37 Posts |
The pictures make it just look dirty but I can promise its not. Notice the reverse is dull yet the 'rim' that faces out on reverse is also 'shiny'. Please forgive my butchering of terminology.   |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2775 Posts |
I'm trying to get the terminology down myself. Hoping if I read or research enough it'll sink in eventually.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2519 Posts |
Military2Civilian, I can't tell much from your pics, but I'll take a guess. From your last photos it looks like the "Liberty" is thicker than normal, and the rim is a little thick too. Could you look at your coin and check for these: -Is the text on your coin look thicker or "bolded" on your coin? -Are there small losses of details on the relief? -Does the rim start to "curl" inward on the coin? If so, your coin might have been a Dryer Coin. The 1999 nickel on the left was identified as a Dryer Coin. It has a normal diameter but it is slightly thicker (I estimate 15%). The rim is beginning to curl in, it's more obvious on the bottom left side. The edge looks like a coin that's been hit a lot of times.  Here's a more extreme Dryer Coin. Diameter only slightly smaller, but it is about 25% thicker. See how the rim curled in.  Maybe you can try a flatbed scanner to get a better closeup of your coin. I used to do that myself, before I could take clear enough photographs of my coins. |
|
New Member
United States
37 Posts |
Interesting. As in stuck in a dryer or used in a commercial one for long periods of time as currency? It could have been before going to the bank I suppose. It's been on my dresser for the last 7 years though. I got it late 2006 so it might have circulated starting in 2005 right? The thing here is though that the reverse is in excellent condition except without the shine. No damage to lettering whatsoever. And could that still explain why the obverse is still in normal condition?
It would explain why I can't find other coins like it. I see about scanning it shortly.
|
|
New Member
United States
37 Posts |
|
|
New Member
United States
37 Posts |
not great. I'll see what I can do
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2519 Posts |
It might have been stuck in the machine of the dryer. Here's an excellent thread: https://goccf.com/t/143863I'm not sure myself why the obverse is shiny. Maybe it was protected by something? |
|
New Member
United States
37 Posts |
That's a great link I thank you.
I just don't see any damage here. None
Its one possibility though. Now what could another possibility be? Is there anything in manufacturing or banking process that could cause this?
|
|
Valued Member
United States
297 Posts |
As you said the coin is in excellent condition with no loss of details.. I am in no way an expert and hopefully the experts will chime in as well but from reading these forums for a while now the only two things that come to mind for me would be maybe an improper rinse, or improper annealing which I believe both of these could have possibly caused your coin to have the dull appearance on the reverse, experts feel free to correct if I'm wrong.. As for the thickness:... well I have not a clue but subscribed for th upcoming lesson if not a Dryer Coin..  |
|
New Member
United States
37 Posts |
Thanks for that post chettie. I was looking into annealing but I'm not sure I understand it fully. There are some very slight irregularities really fine in the reverse capitol building as well, not from circulation far as I can tell. I'm working on scanning it but file size very restrictive.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
297 Posts |
No problem....I have run into a few of these myself as well in multiple denominations awhile back but tossed em back into circulation as I didn't really know much about the annealing process of a coin... Are the details on the reverse of the coin "muddy" at all.. anything on the devices or letters that may give us any clues in a obverse to reverse comparison?.. Just anything other then the obvious that doesn't look right?
|
|
New Member
United States
37 Posts |
That's the reason I'm a bit intrigued. The reverse detail is perfect. Its quite rough to the touch compared to other side or regular coin. Maybe not rough but it doesn't give. I can count the stairs easily. That indentation on roof of capitol. Full detail on obverse as well. I weighed it. Came to 5.1 but that's prob a small scale error. Lets see if an expert comes across this post, fingers crossed.
|
| |
Replies: 31 / Views: 3,234 |
Posted 04/24/2014 10:33 pm
