Picked this up years ago for a good price as I remember. It was listed as having a porous Obv. I am wondering what you think happened to it to make it the way it is. I know from research they had planchet problems back in the day but it has such a nice solid strike, I know it had to be something else since the Rev. is problem free. I am at a loss for what might have done this. Any guesses?
There are a few possible causes. It could be a cast fake, it could be a dug coin, or it could have been harshly clean with an acid.
Why would someone cast a semi-key 1884 nickel, unless they were attempting a proof fake due to the relative availability of business-strikes and cost. My question though is: can one fake a proof finish using casting techniques?
Your line of thinking is exactly the reason why - the easiest fake to get away with is the one where people ask that question. Virtually every coin there is has been faked or counterfeited at one time or another, and yes that includes the least valuable coins there are. And not all fakes are made to fool collectors, a great many of them were made so they could be spent. It's pretty easy to double (or more) your money with a counterfeit. And any time you can double your money, you got a good thing going. Never discount the possibility of a coin being faked, even the most common of coins.
I'm sure it is not a fake. If it was dug up why would only 1 side be affected? Acid cleaning might be the answer but I would think there would be other tell tail signs of the cleaning.
There is also some limited porosity on the reverse, but no where near as much as on the obv. There is one other possibility I forgot to mention, the porosity could easily have been caused by terminal stage toning which was later dipped away. But that's about it. I can think of no other possible explanations.
