I have got another question,it's on a well worn 1905 V nickel,my son found it,liked it,and bought it,it was not much money.The coin has 4 square or triangle marks one on the front and 4 on the back.Were just wondering has anyone seen this or could tell us what it is?Thanks for any help. Keith & Hunter Willis I know the pic may not be very good,if not good enough let me know.
Looks like someone was just playing around trying to drive an old fashioned cut nail through the coin.
Because I cannot see damage on the opposite side from the holes, I'd think some type of machine was used? Something that would stamp that pattern into something else and someone was bored on day and wondered if it could stamp through a nickel. That's what it looks like to me, but it would help to know if the hole patterns match up to each other from both sides? Which, to help show where they are in relation to each other, stick it in a flip and draw a horizontal line (use a ruler) through the center of the flip on both sides, then take a pic of both sides with it in the flip. What the marked flip does is show any rotation in the die, since I believe the reverse is slightly rotated based on assuming the hole patterns match up on both sides. Ribbit Ps: If I am correct, the top hole on the reverse matches up to the left middle hole on the obverse (the one closest to the nose), which would give it a 90 degree rotated reverse.
Rotate the reverse 90 degrees counterclockwise, then look again. :kewl: It matches up perfectly! The diamond shapes show that. Ribbit Ps: On the obverse, the ear is almost dead center and on the reverse, in the center of the V is almost dead center. So if you look on the reverse marks, at the distance from the bottom punch to the center of the V, then look at the obverse marks, at the distance from the right center punch to the ear, the distance is close. :kewl: Pps: It could also be the reverse isn't rotated and I just can't see the damage done to the opposite side, due to wear and the photography. Ppps: Also note the square pattern of the 4 holes. Seems too perfect to be done by hand and I don't know of a nail that has 4 prongs to it? I'm wondering if it might be a punch of some sort? Since the pattern is a 4 hole button pattern, maybe someone used a 4 hole leather button punch to make the marks?
Looks like someone who was bored took a punch or old square nail to that old nickel. Too bad not a bad "V" nickel otherwise
Sorry, but they do not match. The position (distance from the center) looks about right, but the rotation of the diamonds is off by ~30 degrees. The top hole on the front is at about 20 degrees (0 = straight up). Rotating the back 90 degrees will put its top diamond at about 350 degrees (-10 degrees, if you prefer).
Which one is the smallest hole? Reverse - right center Obverse - bottom Rotate reverse 90 degrees counterclockwise and bingo, the smallest holes line-up. Then, the top hole's corner on the reverse is towards the edge, just like the center left hole is on the obverse. However, like I said, it could be the reverse isn't rotated and th holes don't match-up. The one thing that I think is clear, is a tool with 4 prongs made these holes, but what that tool was, I haven't a clue! Ribbit Ps: Take a straight edge (business card) and line up the top and bottom diamonds on the reverse, then line up the left & right diamonds on the obverse. See how they correspond to each other that way.
MAybe I did not say it too clearly, so let's try pics. The angle is not right when the back is rotated 90 degrees.
You need to remember that the "MIRROR RULE" applies to US coinage. What goes up on the obverse, goes down on the reverse: The other thing I notice is the line does not exactly divide the coin dead-center and on the obverse, the "skinny" portion is on the bottom and on the reverse, the skinny portion is exactly opposite (taking into consideration the reverse is rotated), which is exactly what it would be if the punches are exactly opposite each other. But like I said, they may not be but I find it interesting that they correspond properly for it to be an offset reverse. Also. I know I said 90 degrees but that was a rough estimate but like my pics show, it would be close to 90 degrees (I used a straight edge and dotted the edge of the straightedge). Ribbit
You need to remember that a US coin's obv and rev are rotated 180 degrees from each other. So your pics would be like this -
Doug, I assumed that he meant the the coin was misaligned by 90 degrees. Toad, Even assuming that, and you mirror effect, they do not line up. And, if you want to insist that they do, why are there 4 holes on the front and 5 on the back?
Here are the same two pics, except I flipped the reverse pic vertically, which then shows us the allignment of the reverse to the obverse, without using your imagination. Notice how the holes line up, including the little hole being exactly where the other little hole is? Plus, the reference line is the same (use your imagination to correct for the slight difference in angle): As to the fifth hole on the reverse, I can't tell for sure if it was caused by the same tool or not, lil-lone is it actually a hole or maybe just a circulation gouge? The reference I refer to are the four diamond shaped holes that form a practically perfect square pattern on both sides. :kewl: Ribbit Ps: This is probably all moot since it doesn't appear the hole closest to the edge is the same distance from the edge on both sides, but other than that, everything does line up but since distance from the edge is crucial, that says it is probably not a rotated reverse and the holes are not opposite of each other. However, the pics above do help to show that one tool probably made the holes with one punch (four hole punch of some sort).
If the dies were rotated, you may or may not have the mirror effect, but they angles still do not line up. (The dies could be rotated 90 or 270 degrees.) The front is twice the angle of the reverse. Since you lined them up like that, you will also see that the the the holes on the back are more than twice the distance from the center of the coin as the holes on the front. Now we have the number of holes are not the same, the angles are not the same and the positions are not the same.
Once more, which was my original argument/statement, look at the four holes that are in a square shape, ONLY THE FOUR HOLES. In reference to obverse to reverse, do they not look identical as a group? Forget what you call the fifth hole, just look at the four that are CLEARLY in a GROUP and compare them? Look at distance from one hole to another hole, then compare them to the holes on the other side. As to angles, DUH! I said 90 degrees was an apporximate angle, not an EXACT! I also told you to use your imagination to line them up, which that, inofitself, says the angle is not an exact 90 degrees, plus, the photographer has the reverse already slightly tilted counterclockwise in the original pic, so that throws things off in the first place. As to mirror effect, to get it right, if the holes are opposite of one another, all one would have to do is line the holes up and then the mirror effect will be correct. To do that requires adjusting the pic to small degrees less than 90 degrees, which is all I did to the pic, plus flipping it to have the mirror effect occur. So, if the holes were exactly opposite each other, my reference pics were close to how rotated the reverse would have been. As to distance, I already covered that earlier in my postscript so I already noticed the holes weren't the same distance from the edge, but the original pics were not the same size and I couldn't measure to tell. When I redid the pics, I made them the same size so the reference would be closer to true and I didn't think about measuring, once I had them closer to the same size, until after I posted them. So like I said, this is all probably mute, since the distance isn't right but it could still be the case if the machine used to make these holes offset the holes to the point they'd be to the side of the other holes (scissor effect), but I doubt that. Ribbit Ps: Do you think one tool made all four holes (the ones that make a square) in one punch or four seperate punches? Anotherwords, was the square formed by the tool or the person making the holes?
I have enjoyed all the comments and dicussion.My camera is not the best,but if there is anything else i can do to help,let me know and i'll try.Till then if anything can be added,feal free to do so.Thanks,Keith
Not sure what you're all looking at, but it's obvious to me that there is evidence of at least two of the reverse punches that show on the obverse. Better photos or different would probably show others.
