I recently bought this coin and have a couple of questions I’m hoping you can help me with. 1. There is a sort of line connecting the 1, 8 and second 8 in the date. It looks like a die problem. There is also some extra material at the end of one of the stars. (see scans) Does this lessen the grade of the coin? (Note: double click on photos in album to enlarge) 2. There are a few surface dings or scratches on the face. Will these influence the grade? 3. The reverse is clean and looks problem free, and has all the corn kernels. See sans at: http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/jvh99/album?.dir=/b470 Any idea what grade this would be?
Well, there's no picture of the reverse, but it looks to be at least AU. Whether it's any better than that or not is hard to say with what we have. You'd also want to look at it in the light to examine the luster to see whether it might be mint state ("uncirculated") or not. It looks like there's a wee bit of wear on the high points of the hair, so I'd say from this picture, the coin would grade AU. The noise you mention about the line through the date -- if it's a die crack -- wouldn't be likely to significantly change the value, and it doesn't change the grade. If it's not a die crack and it's instead damage that took place after the coin left the mint, it's a "problem" coin to some degree and would be worth less than the values you'd see in the price sheets for the grade. Erring on the side of conservative and assuming you have an AU, the approximate catalog value is around $15-$20 if the reverse side does NOT have the word "CENTS" on the coin, and about $70-$90 if the word "CENTS" does appear on the reverse. This assumes no major problems (cleanings, whizzings, polishing, significant damage to the coin). If any of these problems are present, the value is considerably less. If the coin is actually uncirculated, it would be worth a bit more, especially if the reverse has the word "CENTS" on it. 1883 nickels without the word "CENTS" are quite common in high grades, far more than any other date of so-called "V" nickels (which were struck, officially, from 1883 to 1912).
Thanks for the information! I found a really helpful website (http://apps.heritagecoin.com/features/vcc.php) that has a "Virtual Coin Gallery) in the Liberty nickel section there is a great photo of an uncirculated coin. I think the "wee bit of wear" you mentiond is due to the scan, because when I look at the coin through a loupe it looks pretty much identical to the photo. It has what looks to be mint luster to it and really doesn't appear to have been cleaned. I think it's really interesting that a coin that has a history (Racketeer Nickel) is worth less than the coin that was issued to correct the confusion. Seems like the more valuable coin would be the "famous" one (without "cents" on the back). Were more minted w/o cents than w/cents? Any idea why, besides market preference?
I don't think it's uncirculated. There appear to be very faint traces of wear at the "L" and "I" and on a few small areas in the hair. I think AU50 is pretty accurate.
Thanks for your input, I know how hard it is to do this without the coin in hand. I think your assessment is probably right on. Thanls
Actually, there were three times as many of the more vauable variety minted! A lot of people saved the 1883 nickels when they were first introduced with the lower mintage "no CENTS" variety. By the time the nickels with CENTS on them were released, the novelty of the new design had worn off. That's why far more 1883 no CENTS nickels exist in mint state and AU than any other date in this series.
