Hoping to get a verification from someone if this possible overstamp variety is actually a 1883/82 and not just excessive metal on a regular 1882 or 1883? I have seen other reference photos of authentic 1883/82, but it makes it a bit hard when this coin is as worn as this. Please see photos. Thanks for any inputs! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
NOPE. The last figure on the overdate LOOKS LIKE A "3". If it looks like a "2," it is not the overdate. That goes for coins worn down to G.
Thanks for the input - so you are pretty sure it's the actual overstate then? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm leaning towards a 3, but since it's so worn you can see the 2 underneath which makes me insecure it's actually just a 2. Haven't seen so many of these before so not 100% sure... I'm also posting the coin for a friend so haven't had a chance to have the coin in hand myself. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nickle or nickel? Common mistake. It's a 1882 filled 2 as others have eluded to. You can google image search 1883/2 shield nickels and see what the overdate actually looks like.
1882 filled 2. I have one. An 1883 Shield Nickel has a very widely spaced date. An 1882 has a closely spaced date.
Yes, howards is Howard Spindel. I don't post here often, but every once in a while I take a look for shield nickel related questions.
Thanks to you all for your inputs on this Shield Nickel [emoji6] So what you all are saying is that this coin is actually a 1882 that someone at some point has added extra metal to look like a 1883/82 overdate variety? Thus, it's a 1883/82 counterfeit then. Hope it's not been paid too much for since it was altered. Thanks again! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not a counterfeit and not altered - a real 1882 shield nickel. That is how they came from the mint. If you go to shieldnickels.net you can see the varieties of 83/2 shield nickels and an example of the filled two variety.