Rarest of all Jefferson Nickels?

[WoodenJefferson]

I now seem to be torn between truth, fiction and and an assortment of possible mythical legends.

 

The story goes on...

[RWB]

Conder101 - thanks for the correct information! I knew better than to trust my memory for details....

 

A subplot - there is a huge quantity of virtually untapped archive information from 1920-1980 sitting in the NARA facilities. It is often poorly identified, rarely indexed and most has never been accessed. When I uncovered the operating records for Phil, Denver and San Francisco, I was the first person to examine the files since they left the mint's custody in 1962.

[cladking]

1942 S mint coins struck for other countries

Australia 22 million coins

Fiji 2.5 million coins

Netherlands East Indies 107 million coins

Peru 8.2 million coins

 

Total 139.7 million coins

 

Considering they made 157.3 million US coins that year the foreign coins amounted to 47% of the mints production that year, I doubt they would leave a press standing idle with a nickel die in it for 10 months.

 

 

Production was still up sharply higher than this in 1943. Either they had the capacity or capacity was added in 1943.

[RWB]

As new presses for producing gun cartridges were put into use in 1942/43, old cartridge presses were given to the mints and converted into coin presses. Most of these were suitable for small diameter coins, but some could handle larger sizes. Quite a few were brought back into use in the 1960s including several Bliss presses used to strike 1964-D dollars in May 1965. According to former employee Michael Lantz, the large presses were eventually converted for use as dual quarter presses. (See A Guide Book of Peace Dollars for a photo of some of the large presses in use circa 1965.)

[cladking]

As new presses for producing gun cartridges were put into use in 1942/43, old cartridge presses were given to the mints and converted into coin presses. Most of these were suitable for small diameter coins, but some could handle larger sizes. Quite a few were brought back into use in the 1960s including several Bliss presses used to strike 1964-D dollars in May 1965. According to former employee Michael Lantz, the large presses were eventually converted for use as dual quarter presses. (See A Guide Book of Peace Dollars for a photo of some of the large presses in use circa 1965.)

 

 

This would certainly imply press capacity was an issue and reduce the chances that the presses might sit unused.

 

It would seem improbable that an old reverse die would be left around and inadvertantly placed in a press and an old planchet be available. There's still at least a slim possibility that a press was out of order waiting for a spare part or something.

 

Whatever this thing is I'd lay long odds that it's not a cheap counterfeit designed to steal a few cents from a retailer.

 

 

 

 

 

[Conder101]

There's still at least a slim possibility that a press was out of order waiting for a spare part or something.

For ten months? And I would think they would have some kin of accounting system for the signing in and out of the dies. I would think if a die was signed out and then unaccounted for for ten months it would have been noticed.

[cladking]

I'm not familiar with mint procedure especially in 1942 but they did have a few types of presses in operation apparently and most of these would be bolted to the floor or have some special configuration into which they'd fit. They most probably would not be sent out but would sit until they were repaired. These are simple enough equipment that most parts would be readily accessible or another be made to fit but there are parts like cams which could fail and another have to be found or machined.

 

This press might be one that wasn't a bottleneck; as RWB said they had old cartridge presses available for smaller coins. Floor space might not have been a bottleneck either and even if it were it could be a great deal of work to convert this space to another press type.

 

Perhaps there is adequate evidence to dispel this concept as well but it hasn't been presented here. Industrial operations can become very complicated and what looks obvious sometimes isn't true. What appears impossible can be mundane.

[RWB]

Cartridge presses were made available to the mints as they were superseded by newer cartridge presses at munitions plants, but mostly late 1942 and following. (Keep in mind – FDR had ramped up US munitions production beginning in 1939 to both supply Britain, France and Russia, and allies. This was almost a “start-from-scratch” effort due to neglect during the 1920s and by Hoover’s administration.) What the mints got were beat-up presses, not new equipment. I recall reading one letter (don’t remember the specific date or source ref. other than the Ops Record for SF) that spoke of cannibalizing several ammunition presses to assemble one usable piece of equipment. This was during all-out war – the mints had to scrounge every resource and make do with what they had.

 

(Another example by mid-1941 tin was in short supply for making one-cent pieces. The mint changed from 95% Cu, 5% Sn & Zn to 95% Cu, 5% Zn and a trace of Sn. They got the trace of tin by adding old cent alloy scrap and mutilated old cents to the mix – just enough to be detectable on assay.)

 

[WoodenJefferson]

 

I don't want to keep dragging this out, but reading all of this and ingesting the contents is still somewhat perplexing. I agree that Breen was presumptuous at times, but he did get a lot correct.

 

Excerpts from Walter Breen’s Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins

Pg. 263

 

2684 1942 S Rev. of 1941 S. Unique?

Discovered in circulation by Ken Frith about 1961; later Her­stal:89, 1975 Sub. Wash.:104. Robert Bashlow estate. Mint- mark from the same punch as 2676; presumably a 1941 S rev. remained in press with the 1942 obv. in anticipation of orders for nickel coins, but nothing was made until after the war­time silver alloy went into use. (see below)

 

 

Note: this is the actual image from the book, I attempted to blow it up but it just pixilated and I still could not see much detail, but it is obviously circulated.

 

2676 1941 S Large S.

Large sharp serifs to S, as on cents of later years. Only one rev. die seen to date. Comprises a tiny minority of the mintage. (see below)

 

 

Note: This establishes that it was a large S type that was identified on the 1942-S rev. of 1941

 

 

I want to emphasize this statement as to composition of nickel vs. wartime silver

 

~presumably a 1941 S rev. remained in press with the 1942 obv. in anticipation of orders for nickel coins, but nothing was made until after the war­time silver alloy went into use.~

 

Breen does not specify what the composition was of the 1942-S with 1941 reverse w/ large S offset to Monticello, but this statement alludes to the fact that coins in San Francisco did not go into production until AFTER the composition was changed to silver alloy. Both Denver and Philadelphia minted nickel-copper compositions in 1942 and both also minted silver-copper compostion in 1942, while San Francisco nickel presses sat silent until the introduction of the new planchet material, silver-copper-manganese.

 

How could the specimen reported from the San Francisco Mint be made of nickel-copper?

 

That would be 2 major errors?

 

~spinning~

 

 

[cladking]

There are a lot more questions here than answers so any information you have is certainly welcome. I'm interested where it was found as that might jog my memory a little.

[WoodenJefferson]

Tantalizing article from the New York Times

July 8, 1973

 

But in 1961, a collector named Ken Frith reportedly found in circulation a 1942 copper-nickel, nickel with a small S to the right of Monticello. ...

 

But I do not have access to their archives...so unlike Paul Harvey, I can't read the rest of the story.

 

 

[Conder101]

I first learned about this coin a few decades ago (1970's) and when I was told about it I was told that it was the silver alloy. I think until this piece surfaces again and is examined professionally we aren't going to really know what it is.

[RWB]

Something I find helpful in these situations is an analysis table of three columns.

 

Column 1 is titled “Documented Facts.” These are statements based on original source materials signed by persons in positions to know what was occurring, preferably contemporary with events.

 

Column 2 is titled “Hearsay.” These are statements based on information that was reported by reliable persons but which cannot be independently verified. Might also include reasonable extrapolations from facts in Column 1.

 

Column 3 is titled “Speculation.” Guesses and unsupported assumptions, or conclusions for which neither facts nor hearsay exist.

 

Each statement (as from posts above) is placed in one for the three columns. This helps to organize data and separate it into a useable format. It’s simple and easy to do, although not rigorous and certainly not perfect. (Note: There is nothing logically wrong with speculation – it’s a great way to explore possibilities and extend research into new areas of interest. But it carries little research value until substantiated.)

 

For example,if we take the quote from Breen, mentioned above by woodenjefferson, and assign it to the three columns, here’s what you get.

 

2684 1942 S Rev. of 1941 S. Unique? Discovered in circulation by Ken Frith about 1961; later Herstal:89, 1975 Sub. Wash.:104. Robert Bashlow estate. Mint-mark from the same punch as 2676; presumably a 1941 S rev. remained in press with the 1942 obv. in anticipation of orders for nickel coins, but nothing was made until after the wartime silver alloy went into use. (see below)

 

Column 1 Facts

Discovered in circulation by Ken Frith about 1961; later Herstal:89, 1975 Sub. Wash.:104. Robert Bashlow estate;

nothing was made until after the wartime silver alloy went into use.

 

Column 2 Hearsay

1942 S Rev. of 1941 S;

Mint-mark from the same punch as 2676

 

Column 3 Speculation

presumably a 1941 S rev. remained in press;

in press with the 1942 obv.;

in anticipation of orders for nickel coins;

[photo of a nickel – too poor to be recognizable]

 

Breen’s entry comes down to two factual statements, two pieces of unsubstantiated hearsay, and four speculative statements.

 

[RWB]

Some additional info from the PCGS board - about 2 years ago - including a better photo:

 

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=553039&STARTPAGE=1

[WoodenJefferson]

Good work RWB, I never thought to look/search ATS for info on this...lots of info in that thread.

 

So, Mr. Ken Firth was not the person who actually found the nickel in circulation, he was the first person to identify it as a previously unknown minted nickel. Also as I read on, it has since changed hands many, many times since 1961.

 

Agreed, to dispel any questions, updated 21st Century type CSI testing needs to be performed on this coin to authenticate once and for all.