Sorting thru my spare change I came across a nickle that caught my eye. Placing it on the scale I got a reading of 5.3g. A standard nickle weighs 5.0 grams, with an acceptable difference of +/- 0.1. This falls outside those parameters. From what I've read regarding 'Henning' nickles; they weigh between 5.2 to 5.4 grams and were counterfited in 1939, 1944, 1946, 1947 and 1953. He also used 6 die variations. Most ended up in a river to but some slipped thru the cracks into circulation. Possibe telltale signs are hairline fractures, weight difference or reverse lettering errors, but because he used 6 dies it's hard to pinpoint a real 'Henning.' The coin has noticable die cracks front & back as well as a strange marking on the reverse L. My knowledge is limited compared to the expertise on this forum so any information or speculation you can bring to light would be mucho appreciated! The first pic is a standard nickle to show weight difference.
I don't think so either. I only know of two reverse dies and your coin has neither and the details are too crisp. It may be that you have an out-of-tolerance nickel, being just above the upper spec limit. That's moderately interesting, although to be honest, I haven't spent significant time weighing nickels to know if it significantly out of spec. Some folks here have slabbed specimens of overweight coins. A 1953 Henning would be pretty special though.
That's the thing, there is no true wa That's the thing, he made 6 die varieties so there is no one distinguishing mark that makes it a henning, aside from weighing more than the acceptable weight variations and the noticeable die cracks on both sides. The L the rear is very odd as well, it sort of hook shaped along the vertical section.
Scratches? They are perfect 180° angles intersecting at the middle on both front and reverse. What could possibly create scratches so perfectly defined?
Not guilty, and I'm certain a certification expert could distinguish where they came from. Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology but from what knowledge I do have "dielines" are the culprit.
I agree with scratches. Who did them? A person with nothing better to do - Mr. Ed (Specializing in collecting mint errors since 1985)
If you search for pics of Henning nickels, one thing that stands out is the grainy/mushy appearance. Your coin does not look like that. It has the appearance of circulation wear. Occasionally, the mint has punched blanks from slightly thicker stock, which could account for the weight being at the top end of the tolerance. You can try searching the known Henning dies for EXACT matches of die markers, but short of that, it looks like you just have a normal circulated nickel
My thoughts exactly. Not only did I not see any of the Henning diagnostics I’m familiar with, the coin simply does not look fake enough. Sorry, OP, I think you’ve got a plain old, genuine, slightly heavy 1953 nickel on your hands.
I'm sure that the trial transcripts could be obtained through FOIA, but it might take months to get that information. I'm not sure that I've read anything definitive on how many obverse/reverse dies were made (5 obverse and 2 reverse I suppose). And weight is not a good diagnostic by itself. My Henning weighs 5 grams so the appearance and markers are what qualify it. Unfortunately, you don't have those present on your coin.
For your sake I wish it was, but as already mentioned, doubtful. You've obviously done your homework on Henning's nickels and other than having it authenticate by a TPG, I don't think it is one. Good luck and welcome back to CT.
