Coin Community Family of Web Sites Join Thousands of Coin, Bullion, & Money Collectors
300,000 items to help build your collection! Shop for APMEX Bullion on eBay!Specializing in Modern Numismatics Coin, Banknote and Medal Collectors's Online Mall Join Thousands of Coin, Bullion, & Money Collectors Royal Canadian Mint products, Canadian, Polish, American, and world coins and banknotes. Vancouvers #1 Coin and Paper Money Dealer








Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?


This page may contain links that result in small commissions to keep this free site up and running.

Welcome Guest! Registering and/or logging in will remove the anchor (bottom) ads. It's Free!

Help With 1964-D Nickel (Mint Mark Of 1963 Variety)

To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous TopicReplies: 10 / Views: 1,026Next Topic  
Pillar of the Community
Learn More...
Brandmeister's Avatar
United States
6464 Posts
 Posted 09/11/2023  02:16 am Show Profile   Check Brandmeister's eBay Listings Bookmark this topic Add Brandmeister to your friends list Get a Link to this Message Number of Subscribers
Tonight I was reading about the mint mark variety on the 1964-D Jefferson nickel. Apparently some scarce 1964 nickels use the D mint mark that was only in use for 1963.

Can someone explain the key differences on that era of D mint marks? I gather that the correct 1964 mark has two little horns on the corners of the D. But there is a tremendous variation of Denver mint marks on 1964 nickels, and often quite a lot of die wear. How does one correctly distinguish between 1963 and 1964 Denver D mint marks?

https://www2.briansvarietycoins.com...p/view/13285
http://www.varietyvista.com/04a%20J...20Styles.htm
http://www.varietyvista.com/07%20Ro...20Styles.htm

Pillar of the Community
SamCoin's Avatar
United States
3237 Posts
 Posted 09/11/2023  02:38 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add SamCoin to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Wish I could tell you, this is one that's frustrated me for years. I can not tell what the supposed difference is (and I think of myself as someone who's pretty darn good at identifying very minor varieties in general!)
Edited by SamCoin
09/11/2023 02:39 am
Pillar of the Community
United States
3207 Posts
 Posted 09/11/2023  10:43 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add nick10 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
ditto what Sam wrote

"scarce 1964 nickels" now there's a word combo I never expected to see
Moderator
Learn More...
Dearborn's Avatar
United States
94908 Posts
Pillar of the Community
Learn More...
Brandmeister's Avatar
United States
6464 Posts
 Posted 09/11/2023  11:57 am  Show Profile   Check Brandmeister's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add Brandmeister to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Yeah, it's a challenge. One of the things you learn pretty quickly is that even the mint mark guides often have part of the mint mark in shadow. The differences between the letters are quite subtle. I did a survey of the 1964 Denver mint marks that I had in my jar. Below are the results, plus two that seem noticeably different from each other.

Help-With-1964-D-Nickel-Mint-Mark-Of-1963-Variety
Help-With-1964-D-Nickel-Mint-Mark-Of-1963-Variety
Help-With-1964-D-Nickel-Mint-Mark-Of-1963-Variety
Help-With-1964-D-Nickel-Mint-Mark-Of-1963-Variety
Pillar of the Community
Learn More...
Brandmeister's Avatar
United States
6464 Posts
 Posted 09/11/2023  2:48 pm  Show Profile   Check Brandmeister's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add Brandmeister to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Help-With-1964-D-Nickel-Mint-Mark-Of-1963-Variety
Ok, in the tradition of Coop, I decided to make a reference image for the 1963-D vs. 1964-D Jefferson nickel mint marks. I used the mint state examples from the PCGS site to survey the Denver mint marks. A few have Machine Doubling marks, but I think it's helpful to see the imperfect D as well.
Pillar of the Community
Learn More...
Brandmeister's Avatar
United States
6464 Posts
 Posted 09/11/2023  3:22 pm  Show Profile   Check Brandmeister's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add Brandmeister to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
This is a much better version of the survey above. All the images are cropped around the mint marks. Hope this helps someone in the future!

1964-D Jefferson nickel mint mark survey:
Help-With-1964-D-Nickel-Mint-Mark-Of-1963-Variety
Help-With-1964-D-Nickel-Mint-Mark-Of-1963-Variety
Help-With-1964-D-Nickel-Mint-Mark-Of-1963-Variety
Pillar of the Community
United States
3207 Posts
 Posted 09/11/2023  3:41 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add nick10 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
unsure why your Nickel 1964-D mint marks image includes two 1963 nickel obverses
Pillar of the Community
Learn More...
Brandmeister's Avatar
United States
6464 Posts
 Posted 09/11/2023  4:11 pm  Show Profile   Check Brandmeister's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add Brandmeister to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
I should re-label it. The top row is 1963-D mint marks. The second row is 1964-D mint marks. The purpose is to help identify the differences between the two styles, and detect when the 1963-D mark was used on 1964-D nickels.

Eventually I think this will become a short article. The raw material will be much better presented. Does anyone know how to get access to the CONECA information on this variety?
Pillar of the Community
Learn More...
Brandmeister's Avatar
United States
6464 Posts
 Posted 09/11/2023  4:30 pm  Show Profile   Check Brandmeister's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add Brandmeister to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Help-With-1964-D-Nickel-Mint-Mark-Of-1963-Variety
This is a good example of why mint marks are my nemesis. That particular 1964-D mint mark looks like Nickel MMS-001 or Wheat cent MMS-002 (which are actually probably the same mint mark). The squared off, parallel serifs do not look like any of the subsequent pointed serifs. According to the Variety Vista reference, neither of those mint mark punches was in use within a decade of 1964.

Sometimes I think the mint mark puncher guys just picked up whatever punch was available and used it. Also, possibly the engravers felt no particular obligation to be very precise about the punch making. Honestly, both scenarios probably make practical sense, because who was ever going to look at Denver mint marks under a microscope? They made over a billion nickels in 1964, it was probably sheer madness at the mint.

This could also just be a D mint mark deformed by a damaged punch, Die Deterioration, or some other factor.

http://www.varietyvista.com/04a%20J...20Styles.htm

http://www.varietyvista.com/09d%20W...20Styles.htm
Pillar of the Community
Learn More...
Brandmeister's Avatar
United States
6464 Posts
 Posted 09/13/2023  6:26 pm  Show Profile   Check Brandmeister's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add Brandmeister to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Started with my usual 10 rolls of nickels today. Found five 1964-D. Sure enough, I had four with the typical curved 1964-D mint mark, and one with a totally flat back. Then it occurred to me to look at NGC instead of PCGS.

Help-With-1964-D-Nickel-Mint-Mark-Of-1963-Variety

NGC 1962-D 5c Registry
NGC 1963-D 5c Registry
NGC 1964-D 5c Registry

If you check out the reverses of the full size pictures, you can clearly see the difference between the standard 1962 vs. 1963 vs. 1964 Denver mint mark.
Edited by Brandmeister
09/13/2023 6:26 pm
  Previous TopicReplies: 10 / Views: 1,026Next Topic  

To participate in the forum you must log in or register.



    




Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Contact Us  |  Advertise Here  |  Privacy Policy / Terms of Use

Coin Community Forum © 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Forums
It took 0.33 seconds to rattle this change. Forums