| Author |
 Replies: 14 / Views: 1,464 |
|
|
New Member
United States
32 Posts |
Gotta know what yall think of this. Dug by a fellow digger  Moved to US Error Section
-GO |
|
|
|
New Member
 United States
32 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1807 Posts |
Looks like a repunched Denomination error.
|
|
New Member
United States
32 Posts |
Did you look at the back it appears to have 3 dates
|
|
Valued Member
United States
321 Posts |
10 Cents on a 5 cent nickel. Cool lolol
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1923 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12437 Posts |
The coin is too crusty and the pics are too low quality to make much of a determination of anything. If you are seeing dates of 1823 and 1863 besides the obvious 1873, then someone has messed with it because it would be impossible to have a valid error with date spread like that, not to mention the fact that Shield nickels weren't minted until 1866. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2189 Posts |
I think this coin goes to show you that people monkeyed around with their coins a hundred years ago just like they do in modern times.I think it's just impossible to have 2 or even 3 different dates on a legitimate coin from the Mint.Unless a worker from the mint felt like playing around that day.Then the Question I have. would is it still be considered an Error if it was a man-made Error from the Mint?If a third party grading service can verify it's authenticity then you have a very special coin.
Condition of the coin would probably have a Negative effect on it somewhat.
I hope it can be Authenticated as real because it looks pretty cool.Good luck and let us know what happens
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10284 Posts |
I looked at the nickel and cent and I think that they are cast fakes.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2189 Posts |
The coins that Texanconnection posted look real enough.That's what they look like after being in the ground for over a hundred years.Here's a few of my own recent metal detector finds and they've only been in the ground for 5 or 10 years.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1807 Posts |
The obverse has what looks like a hammer job to it;  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
The extra lettering and dates on the obverse are incuse and reversed. Obviously the result of a hammer job. For the size of the images I would say they used either a nickel Three Cent piece or an Indian Head cent. From the tip of the bust being over the 1 of the date at 10:00 I would say they used a cent. As for the doubled 5 on the reverse. The coin was on a soft metal plate such as a brass plate when the first coin ws struck into the obv. This forced the center of the nickel into the metal plate creating a shallow reversed impression in the plate, in effect turning it into a die. The nickel was placed back over the depression but slightly rotated. The cent was placed back on the nickel and the second obv impression was made. But when th coins were struck the "die" in the metal plate also created a slightly raised and forward image on th back of the nickel, with a slight rotation between images. It is not a mint error, just post mint mutilation. |
|
New Member
United States
29 Posts |
I wouldn't call it mutilation! I think it's pretty dern cool looking.
Edited by Mod to remove curse word (please remember we have kids on this board)
|
|
Valued Member
United States
224 Posts |
Quote:Conder101...The extra lettering and dates on the obverse are incuse and reversed. Obviously the result of a hammer job. For the size of the images I would say they used either a nickel Three Cent piece or an Indian Head cent. From the tip of the bust being over the 1 of the date at 10:00 I would say they used a cent. As for the doubled 5 on the reverse. The coin was on a soft metal plate such as a brass plate when the first coin ws struck into the obv. This forced the center of the nickel into the metal plate creating a shallow reversed impression in the plate, in effect turning it into a die. The nickel was placed back over the depression but slightly rotated. The cent was placed back on the nickel and the second obv impression was made. But when th coins were struck the "die" in the metal plate also created a slightly raised and forward image on th back of the nickel, with a slight rotation between images. It is not a mint error, just post mint mutilation. Conder, It appears that you are right on the money (Per se) about the coin! If one only viewed the picture of the Reverse, the coin is easily mistaken for one being Double Struck. However, with the reversed and incuse Lettering and Dates on the Obverse, the hammering job becomes all too clear. After spending the time to hammer one or more 1863 Indian cents onto the Obverse of the coin, possibly in an attempt to make the coin worth more in someone's eyes, the producer of the fake (altered) Error coin must have tossed it after not being able to fool anyone. It is a shame that this person destroyed two or three nice collectible coins in an attempt to produce one nearly worthless fake! If the person that found the coin was to go back to the area where this coin was found, they might come across the one or two 1863 Indian Head cents that were used in the hammer job. Frank Edited by huntsman53
09/02/2009 08:08 am
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Quote:
It is a shame that this person destroyed two or three nice collectible coins in an attempt to produce one nearly worthless fake! But at the time it was created the coins were probably just pocket change not "nice collectible coins". |
| |
Replies: 14 / Views: 1,464 |
|
Posted 08/24/2009 01:32 am
