2005 5 Cent Victory Nickel With Heavily Frosted/Matte Reverse, Normal?

John some thing to think about the 2001 Canadian nickles are produced in two types of finish. the 2017 150 50 cent piece is produced in also in two types of finish. but you dont see that information listed anywhere either. be care full right now I am staying out of the 2000 issue of coins. when I start that run. I will give the 2006 a really good go over. if I find a different finish I will post it here. keep up the good work. I can tell you more about your 1965 nickle for now. we will leave it at that. have a great one

rocky, thank you for that information. I plan to keep this for a while and continue to search nickel rolls and hopefully be able to find another at some point, I go through about $300 a week looking through boxes of nickels and I've found more than my fair share of the 2005 Victory nickels in every condition you could think of and out of all of them this one stands out. I'm not 100% convinced it is damage but until I find another that is identical or someone else does that is just what I am going by for now.

I also wouldn't mind hearing your opinion regarding my 1965 nickel rocky, I'm always interested in what people think about it.


chadcoins, I did check it with a magnet and it is magnetic, that was the first thing I tried before posting it on here. I find a lot of weird coins in all different conditions but I try to save the weirdest/odd balls and post them on here. Even if it does turn out to be damage at least I posted about it and didn't keep it for myself and will save someone else the hassle, although I do feel there is more to it than just being damage.

I don't know if it counts for anything but in the fields of the 2005 Victory nickel upon closer inspection with my microscope there is also smaller microscopic "blobs" of metal (like die chips) raised all over the coin giving it the frosted finish, so the thing keeping me from being 100% convinced it is just damage is if it were damage, would it not be incuse in the coin (acid eating away) leaving the surface bumpy and rough. Also if I am not correct if any type of acid ate away at a coins surface would it not weigh less do to loss of metal? yet this coin weighs the exact weight it should witch is 3.95 grams.

I am in no means finished with this coin but until I get another or someone else finds one it's staying on my radar for now on until I feel like damage is the only answer.

I still like my first thought of a lawn coin or another simple explanation is the metal roll was not correctly completely rinsed with nitric acid, which is one of this acid's main use. Although a good coin for talking purpose,it is not an error, someone at the RCM would have noticed the 1000 or 2000 ft coil if one side was incorrectly cleaned through out it's entire length.

I would also like to add (although I don't fully know if its right or even related) in 2005 they also made a Victory nickel with the reverse devices frosted as seen here on numista.

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces36424.html


I also found on ebay someone selling victory nickels with the main photo looking almost identical to the one I have. I know going by ebay photo's is not always valid but If you look on ebay most of them are shiny, again except for this one this person has/had.

https://www.ebay.ca/itm/140906630791


My thought was, is it not possible that the mint might have "Possibly" frosted the wrong die that was meant for the silver 60th Anniversary of WWII Victory and just didn't bother to say anything in hopes no one would really notice? I've heard crazier things happened at the mint that were denied and turned out to be real. I am a strong believer that anything is possible, and that is why I'm not fully agreeing or disagreeing that this is just damage.

I have no doubt that the finish could probably be reproduced, I agree on that for sure. But again, the key word is "could" be reproduced, witch leaves lot's of room for possibilities and mistakes. To be honest I really don't care too much for the victory nickel, love what it stands for but design wise I like the beaver more, or the older reverse's on 1936 and under, until yesterday the victory nickel I never paid any attention to other than if they had an error or not.

I was never planning to spend this much time looking into a nickel I didn't really have much interest for in the first place but I suppose here I am lol.

I was ready to leave it and move on to other coins I have been looking at that I found but this one I plan to pick at for a while here and there, if I had more knowledge on how to deal with nitric acid I would try an experiment myself and see what effects it has on a normal circulated victory nickel but thats just not something I feel comfortable doing so I probably won't.

I do however feel like there is a good possibility of a "mix up" of the frosting on the dies regarding the silver 2005 proof victory nickel ( https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces36424.html ) and the 2005 victory nickel meant for circulation. BUT that is just my own opinion (witch is fairly uneducated) as I am still learning.

I see your point with the cup holder coins for sure, but again with that answer just raises more questions, the best of my knowledge I have learned that coins soaked/sitting in any type of acid would generally turn the surface porous and eat at the metals surface and not turn it sparkly/shiny and not add extra metal, witch this coin has, witch is why I thought maybe an un-polished die.

Also since you pointed out the elephant in the room and mentioned "mules" I am obviously not going to jump the gun and call this a mule until I have sufficient research/opinions to suggest that, although it has been sitting at the back of my mind after I did the acetone test, mules have been found in the past where they shouldn't be just like you pointed out with the 2010 10 cent mule found in the Young Wildlife Set (im assuming is the coin you are referring to) so I'm keeping that option open as well... for now anyways.

Alan, exactly what I was thinking. I knew planchets weren't "pre-frosted", it was the die that had the matte/frosting finish added I also know they had the 2005 Nickel with 3 different designs/finishes, one being the normal 2005 Beaver, the 2005 Victory and the Silver 2005 Victory nickel with the matte/frosted Reverse.

So given the fact there are 3 different nickels in the same year and and the silver one showing the matte/frosting on the Reverse I think it could be very possible they had some what of a mix up and frosted the wrong die (a non silver 2005 Victory nickel Reverse die) or something along those lines creating a 3rd version of the 2005 victory nickel (mule). Things like this have happened before with the same scenario, there is always the possibility that the mint thought people would think/assume the exact same thing everyone else did at first and pass it off as just damage or wear due to the low mintage of the "mule", why bother saying anything if nobody notices. We are only human, we make errors and sometimes they go completely un-noticed, but again this is only my opinion and theory, which there are many possibilities.

I do try to educate myself the best I can and I do respect and take opinions/input for what they are usually without any concern because they are usually valid but sometimes you just have to ask these things or you will never know.

john100, valid point. But what gets me is the "Almost all" part, now if you said All mules that have been found were already publicized and accounted for then I would be all aboard with the damage theory. But it seems like with every answer just provides even more questions... Which as you can tell doesn't seem to end with a reasonable outcome really for anyone, I know there are a lot of people on this forum that are well educated (like yourself) yet every educated answer seems to come back with an equally educated question.

When a mule is found there are 3 main questions I would be asking if I had found one, How was it made, Why was it made and who do you even contact in regards to asking these types of questions, let alone someone that can determine its legitimacy.

When the first (or any) mule was found, how was it found? circulation? a BU roll? or did the mint just come right out and say hey, we kinda messed up so look out for "this" coin in your change...

i may not be a coin expert but I do have experience finding many damaged coins from the environment during my times metal detecting, I have a background in the mechanics industry as well which has shown me my fair share of cup holder coins while detailing (obviously putting them back where I found them) or pulling parts from a scrap yard which a friend of the family owns so I got to go through all the cars growing up and even during then I've never came across damage that could make a coin look like it has a sparkling frosted finish, if anything cup holder coins or acid damaged coins would be very dull, corroded and or very porous.

Like I mentioned before, the victory nickel is really not something on my "look for" list by any means, but this thing popped out at me as soon as it came out of the roll, in the light it sparkles just like a frosted finish, feels just like a frosted finish and looks just like one, microscopic details with die chip like bumps and all... an I'm sure most of you guys know the saying when it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it usually is a duck. But I never mentioned it being a mule until it was brought up but I guess I will never really know until someone else finds one because even if it were to turn out to be a mule, I highly doubt I will ever find a second one in circulation to compare it too. So I am stuck with my many questions and theory's until myself or someone else can provide further proof to back it all up, that is just my honest respectful opinion.