Newest Shield Nickel..plus extra one

The 1878 is the newest edition. The 1870 I just thought was cool cause of (what I think) is die polish lines around the cross and at the bottom of the shield towards the date and ball. Once again all comments and/or grading opinions are welcome.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Shield Nickels are one of my favorite seires. My grading skills are probably rusty after an 8-week layoff but I'll take a stab.

The '78 looks to be MS-63. Good strike. Nice looking coin.

I'll go EF-45 on the '70. I like the die polish marks and the die cracks. I especially like the broken letters on the reverse.

 

I can agree with the 70 estimate. On the 1878 I have to disagree - but only because they did not have business strikes in 1878 for shield nickels.

 

The 1878 is proof-only and yours appears to have been a bit mishandled, most likely post-Mint.
Could be as low as PF-55 depending upon what the graders would think about the source (and degree) of the dings.

The 1870 is interesting.
From your images, I agree with the die polish lines on the obverse.
Not sure of the source of the line at 1 o'clock, but the one at 4 o'clock looks like a die crack.
The reverse obviously has a die crack, but it also has some other interesting features.
Parts of both "S"s and the "A" in STATES are missing.
Same with the second "A" in AMERICA and the "S" in CENTS.
Other thin parts of letters are missing too. Like the "F" in OF.
I don't see evidence of die polishing, but that would be my best guess, especially since it appears to affect only thin parts of the letters.
Looks XF.

 

Nice coins. I can't tell from the photo of the 1878, but check inside the lower loop of the second 8 (along the inner right side). It may be repunched.

 

I totally agree with Hobo on that! :hammer:

I actually like it over the 78 because I love coins with errors. Perfect coins have their place but not in my heart.

Love'em! :thumb:

Ribbit

 

Kanga - the proof is actually nicer in hand. The picture makes it look spotty across the coin, but it really is much nicer in hand. I would not be surprised if it had a light bath somewhere along the way.

toad - I agree in some respects. I like die cracks and varieties, they do make coins interesting. At the same time I don't mind a nice clean coin.

 

Very nice Mark. Really like the 78 -- looks like it has a touch of cameo contrast to it!

 

I would say the 78 is a PR 61 no cameo designation, the 70 I would say EF 40 wonderful coins . I have a 1882 in VF. Great coins you have there .:thumb:


Jazzcoins Joe:whistle:

 

If that coins is a 61, I'll take a dozen.

 

That would explain the good strike, wouldn't it? It's little details like that (Proof-only issues) that one tends to forget during a 2-month absense.

 

Welcome back!!!! And for a 8 week absence you did well, glad to see you back hobo.

And yes all - it is a PR61, with a little cameo left. I was worried a little when I first bought it, but in hand under a 10x glass it looks great. Now to find the elusive 1877 for the complete date set.

 

I am very surprised at that grade. Tell me, Mark, why do you think it graded 61? I see no reason for such a low grade (usually reserved for seriously impared proofs). Confusingly yours...Mike (who needs to look for 12 other 61's now )

 

I just did, and I still think it looks better than any proof 61 I've ever seen (which is a fairly rare grade to begin with). I still don't get it, and would like Mark to address my question -- as the coin looks like a 62 or 63 worst case to my eye....Mike

 

p.s. I would expect a 61 to have high-point wear or serious hairlines, or something else very obviously wrong with the coin. I see a few spots, and a few hits/hairlines, but again, nothing that would warrant a 61 grade (to me).

 

Yes - if you look on the reverse very closely you can see some hits on the coin. Not quite as obvious on the obverse, but they are still there. In hand you can still see some of the cameo effect - I think the coin is accurately graded. I also have proof a proof 63(1879), 64(1879/8) and 65(1880) to compare to. I think this coin has as much luster as the 63, but the lite hits reduce it to a 61. This coin does not compare to the 64 and 65 under a glass. But if you set them side by side using the naked eye I believe most would pick the 1880 and this coin before the 1879's, both the 78 and 80 have a slight cameo effect. If I get time this weekend I will try to see if there is a way for me to get the four coins in a picture.

And I agree with you - I would take any Shield Nickel that looked like this.

 

Just checking heritate - http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=28111&Lot_No=21107. Look at the reverse on this coin - I would pass on it. Looks like the white spots that silver eagles get.

 

Well as you promised i guess you have to take a dozen. . Do you want a bakers dozen. The coin has a lot of little problems to grade higher then that lots of tiny nicks, and that will take the grade down substantially . The surface of the coin does'nt even have the proof look anymore it seems diminished,and that must have took the grade down too, this proof coin has it;s problems.


Jazzcoins Joe

 

I agree and disagree - I think in hand it still has the proof look and the tiny nicks take it to 61. I think if you had the coin in hand you could still see a slight cameo effect. And in your defense you do only have my pictures to go on - so if your ever in Louisville let me know.