1964 NICKEL

Discussion in 'Error Coins' started by mvsvette, Oct 5, 2025 at 1:25 PM.

  1. mvsvette

    mvsvette New Member

    I was searching through a set of "S" nickels I purchased a few years back and came across this 1964 no mint mark nickel. It's been in a flip for many years. It looks almost uncirculated. What does the group think? Cool looking coin.
     

    Attached Files:

    ksmooter61 likes this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. -jeffB

    -jeffB Greshams LEO Supporter

    I believe you've got a proof there. Not sure if it's seen circulation.
     
    mvsvette, SensibleSal66 and Spark1951 like this.
  4. Collecting Nut

    Collecting Nut Borderline Hoarder

    It does look proof. Very nice and beautiful toning.
     
    mvsvette and SensibleSal66 like this.
  5. mvsvette

    mvsvette New Member

    Thanks for the reply. It is a very clean coin. It looks black in color.
     
    SensibleSal66 likes this.
  6. Collecting Nut

    Collecting Nut Borderline Hoarder

    Please leave it that way. It’s toned down don’t try to clean or brighten the coin. That will wreck any value.
     
  7. ldhair

    ldhair Clean Supporter

  8. Burton Strauss III

    Burton Strauss III Brother can you spare a trime? Supporter

    With a few exceptions, no mintmark indicates that it was minted at the Philadelphia Mint (the mothership, as it were, not needing to mark things up).

    The cool kids don't bother, just calling it 1964. Or maybe if they want to be pedantic 1964(P).
     
    SensibleSal66, KBBPLL and Spark1951 like this.
  9. Spark1951

    Spark1951 Accomplishment, not Activity

    Definitely looks like a proof, get it protected into a capsule or at least a 2x2 flip.

    Also, try not to use the term “no mint mark” incorrectly. Your proof nickel was minted in Philadelphia and was never intended to have a mint mark, so you would say “1964 Philadelphia Proof” (not “no mint mark”).

    By contrast, some 1982 proof sets were discovered to have Roosevelt dimes that did not have a “P” mint mark like they were supposed to have. So, in this case you would say “1982 No Mint Mark Roosevelt Dime”. This dime is very valuable and in great demand. It’s important to use the proper terminology.

    For clarity: Proof Sets were produced by the Mint in 1982, but Mint Sets were not, and because they did not make Mint Sets for 1982 (and 1983, too) coin dealers and LCS shops were forced to cobble together their own mint sets from coins supplied by bank rolls and Mint bags intended for business.

    edited: my post was being created and I posted a little later than
    @Burton Strauss III who provided succinct info. My post morphed into a diatribe and took a little longer to post. The point is: both posts have accurate info…Spark
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2025 at 5:42 PM
    KBBPLL and SensibleSal66 like this.
  10. mvsvette

    mvsvette New Member

    Thank you. I will not nor intend to alter it.
     
    Collecting Nut likes this.
  11. mvsvette

    mvsvette New Member

    It's in beautiful uncirculated condition. Thank you.
     
  12. mvsvette

    mvsvette New Member

    Thank you
     
  13. mvsvette

    mvsvette New Member

     
  14. mvsvette

    mvsvette New Member

    Do not reply to any of my post. I do not need your opinion nor your belittling. I have been collecting coins for 10+ years. Whoever you think you are, keep it to yourself!!
     
  15. Burton Strauss III

    Burton Strauss III Brother can you spare a trime? Supporter

    Oh, sweetie, take your 'tude and stfu.
     
    Inspector43 and Spark1951 like this.
  16. Spark1951

    Spark1951 Accomplishment, not Activity

    @mvsvette What I offered you was not my opinion. Just facts, and I in no way said anything belittling.

    However, I do agree with you in that you don’t need any help from me.
     
  17. mvsvette

    mvsvette New Member

    Good do not reply to any of my post.
     
  18. mvsvette

    mvsvette New Member

    I don't need you either.
     
  19. KBBPLL

    KBBPLL Well-Known Member

    Is there a reason you posted this in the error forum? From the context of your first post - you're looking through a set of S nickels, call it "no mint mark", and seeing that it is a proof - I got the impression that you thought it was one of the "No S" proof coins. (I'll go out on a limb and correct @Spark1951 - the proof dimes erroneously struck from a die missing the S are called "No S" not "no mint mark" - see https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1983-10c-no-s-dcam/95265). If you've collected for 10+ years and you've been a member here for 5, surely you've seen posts telling people not to designate coins as "no mint mark", so I have trouble understanding why you're lashing out like this. I usually see that kind of thing from people getting told that their "error" coin isn't actually worth a bazillion dollars. As a first thread this is not the way to make friends on here. It's a pretty coin, enjoy it.
     
    -jeffB and Spark1951 like this.
  20. Spark1951

    Spark1951 Accomplishment, not Activity

    Absolutely correct…the 1983 proof dime was “No S”.

    The 1982 business strike was the missing “P” dime, and is referred to as “No P”.
    If someone referred to it as a “no mint mark” while posting I would still understand which coin was being referred to.
     
    KBBPLL likes this.
  21. KBBPLL

    KBBPLL Well-Known Member

    Thanks, I always forget about the 1982 No P. PCGS oddly calls it both - their #5207 calls it "no mintmark - weak" and their #146349 calls it "no P weak." So yes, this might be the only case where saying "no mint mark" conveys something meaningful. Probably a losing battle though.
     
    SensibleSal66 and Spark1951 like this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page