| Author |
 Replies: 8 / Views: 7,945 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
237 Posts |
Hi everyone, Seeing aristarchus123's post yesterday http://goccf.com/t/314178) caused me to post this one today. I've had this nickel set aside for weeks and initially thought it might be a Magician's coin. But, I wasn't sure as the obverse/reverse were perfectly aligned as you would expect in a complete coin. Below are some pictures, not the greatest ones... Would this be a partial collar error? I also took a comparison shot next to a 1960 nickel that had a normal rim. Thanks in advance!     |
|
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
97 Posts |
Considering that the nickel is in pretty rough shape as it is, I would say no, but it could be.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2775 Posts |
Added link to other post. http://goccf.com/t/314178If the lip was switch around I'd say maybe so. My issue with this coin is the collar deploys from the bottom around the anvil die. This year production setup was using the reverse die as the anvil. Unless my eyes are deceiving me the lip seems reversed, which makes think something modified the edge after strike. Note: In 1992 the Denver Mint started experimenting with using the reverse die as the hammer die so not a factor here. Thanks, Doug. |
|
Valued Member
 United States
237 Posts |
thanks for the reply, Halo1st. I looked at the coin, and the thicker part of the rim is toward the reverse (Monticello). For sure could be someone ground down an edge or something
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
If the ege was ground down, then it would be smaller than a normal nickel. The wide part of the area where the collar is missing, it wider than normal. That is just the way a partial collar should look. Not PSD. Real Deal. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
74533 Posts |
Awesome find! As Coop has said, it's not grounded down and it's not a Magician's coin. It's a Partial Collar error. It's a keeper and 2x2 worthy. Make sure to get it protected as soon as possible and label it "1989 D Nickel With Partial Collar".  Errers and Varietys.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2775 Posts |
Coop, are we saying that make it's a reverse partial collar or did the Denver mint start experimenting with inverted die setup sooner than 1992? Thanks, Doug.
Edited by Halo1st
03/20/2018 11:50 am
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
I have found that the mint is not consistent with which die they use for the anvil. Some years it's one die some years it's the other.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2775 Posts |
Thanks Conder101 for the followup. I was going by known year(s) Mike Diamond commented on in the past. http://goccf.com/t/94501&SearchTerms=anvil,dieQuote:
mikediamond Posted 07/31/2011, Beginning in 1992 (at the Denver branch), the Mint started experimenting with using the reverse die as the hammer die. This setup gradually became more common until it was the predominant setup in 2002. Changeover was complete (at least for business strikes) by 2005. So all coins, except proofs, are struck with an "inverted" die setup. More food for thought by Mike Diamond found in below link on error-ref. http://www.error-ref.com/inverted-d...nstallation/dadsoncoinhobby, if this is as it seems (partial collar) with this orientation. Also Coop and Conder101 commenting on the possibility, I'd think it precedes the 1992 inverted quarter example. Thanks, Doug. Edited by Halo1st
03/22/2018 12:14 pm
|
| |
Replies: 8 / Views: 7,945 |
|
Posted 03/19/2018 1:42 pm
