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