I have looked for this variety in several references, but have yet to find anything close. Take a look and tell me what you think.
Looks like acute strike doubling to me, the design elements below the shield are also strike doubled.
...But not on the ball of the design over the 8. I would suggest the possiblity it is 2 different date punchings. There just seems too much difference in the size of the underlying and overlying 7 serif, etc. There is a FS#5-009 which is a large date 1873 over small date open 3,shield, but this isn't it. The different size date is suspected to be from a 3 cent CN or 1/2 dime according to the CPG. So maybe this is a similar situation, although it looks like a small date over a large date. Jim
Strike doubling is usually pretty even all around , I agree with Desert Gem , the difference in size is just too great to be strike doubling . rzage
A small date over a large date is what I have been looking for in the references, but none of them show one like this. I have had several people tell me is is strike doubling, but none of the didgits show "smear" and both of the sevens show a clear, continuous logotype shape. I have alos had some say that it may be die deterioration...again, each didgit shows a distinctly different shape with clear lines. if there are any shield nickel people out there that can point me to a reference, I would be grateful...
Not the same year ( but close), but this reference might be available in the ANA library or a nickel specialist might have it to be able to see if similar to yours. Kenneth R. Hill. "The 1872 Small Date Over Large Date". Nickel News, Summer 1988 I would suspect the possibility, if there are no or few other examples, that it was a mint insider job. It is too noticeable and I feel would be so even in low grades, for such a variety to be un-noticed by Breen and CPG, but I am not a Shield collector. Congratulations on having a fun piece to push you to research! envy! Jim
There are no splits in the serifs...this looks like strike doubling...flat shelf-like secondary image. Larry Nienaber
I wouod have said strike doubling, except that the 1, 7 & 3 are all different styles from the underdates. Veddy interesting, but strange.
Looks like machine doubling to me. Both the shield and the date show the same flat, marginal shelving. Since the shield is hubbed in, and the date is punched in, you may find die-based doubling on one or the other, but not both. Also note that the top of the "normal" 7 (the higher relief element) is abbreviated on the left side and the same thing goes for the bottom of the 3. That's consistent with machine doubling and is something you would not find on a repunched date.
It is almost certainly machine doubling. The only possibility I could see for it being something else would be a close double strike that flattened and spread the primary strike, and the primary was machine doubled. You can see this wide spread flat doubling sometimes on proof coins where the first stricke is mahine doubled and the second strike flattens and spreads the doubled image.
my first thought when i saw the picture that its a counterfeit copy because of the denticles and the major doubling can we see both sides "that coin guy" i think that some forget that common coins were counterfeited because a nickel or any other coin could buy alot more 100 -150 years ago than today
I still can not validate strike/machine doubling due to the lack of doubling on the "ball" of the shield structure that is approximately between the date and the "doubling" part of the shield. If it was machine doubling I would expect at least as much doubling there as on the leaf like structure. Also as mentioned, the style/font/size of the underlying date looks very different from the overlying date. It seems unlikely that the "smearing" of the underlying shelf ( if it was machine doubling) would extend that far with as much height. I don't believe there is enough metal in the numeral. I still feel it is a small date over large date. How ? or When? no idea. Suspicion is there because it is seemingly undescribed in literature, so machine doubling seems logical, but possibly it was a low number production. Mysteries are fun! Jim
It is doubled but it is harder to see. Notice though how the ball is not symetrical but instead is smeared out to the left toward 7:00 the same direction as the smearing of the date.
Did you check with Howard Spindell at shieldnickels.net? There are also several other places you can post that might know the variety.
If you compare your photo to a normal shield nickel you can see that the metal from the flat shelf-like image came from the original strike, nothing extra there…machine doubling. Larry Nienaber
That is probably the most supportable numeral towards strike effect, but if one looks at the flow, I would think that on the bottom right side, the underlying effect would not go as far right as it did, considering the mass movement to the left. Also using the posted photo, I find 2 areas that I think supports an "other" consideration. Mainly the different style of the bottom of the 7 and the 3. The edges are distinct, but if metal was smeared that much, it wouldn't retain that much depth in the overlying impression. The top of the 3 also seems not to have any machine effect. If we take the photo and pass it through an "edge" filter you can see that the circle on the bottom of the shield is even on both sides as to a spread, where as the numbers do show strong edges. Anyway, always enjoy discussing theories, thanks. Jim
