Whats going on with shield nickels ?

[skippy]

That's a nice lookin' coin.

 

Most likely the spots you marked are die cracks, not polishing lines. I can't see through your marks to be sure.

[dooly]

That's a nice lookin' coin.

 

Most likely the spots you marked are die cracks, not polishing lines. I can't see through your marks to be sure.

 

Hi Howard they are a bit like F-63 Missing leaf #2 Circular lines in field

[dooly]

 

As posted elsewhere .. waiting for one of my wish list shields to come .. not from the USA for a change

[dooly]

Seems like i have picked up a 72 Doubled Annulet today .. seems like an age since i found one at an affordable price..Not the largest of the type .. but still not a bad find if it is one

 

 

also seems to have something going on at the G in god

[dooly]

Morning all .. left a token bid on this coin last night as it was for sale on a no Uk site and with 335 views thought no chance .. got up and found i had won it not a mega rarity but not a bad coin for the price

 

it is the reverse of 68 which is a bit less common than the reverse 67 on 1868 shields and has at least 2 broken letters C & S of CENTS (type 2.95) and possibly S in States (type 2.96) . I am hopeing that it is only a weak bar in States as i do not have a transitional of these two types in the collection

 

And what a Die crack/ retained cud on the Obverse

 

[skippy]

I can't tell from the photos whether the '72 is a DDO. Looks like it could be just dirt on the coin.

 

I haven't seen a 2-broken letter to 3-broken letter transitional. Let us know when you get the coin, please.

[dooly]

I can't tell from the photos whether the '72 is a DDO. Looks like it could be just dirt on the coin.

 

I haven't seen a 2-broken letter to 3-broken letter transitional. Let us know when you get the coin, please.

 

cheers howard yes the 72 has got me but i had to give it a go

 

as has the possible transitional .. will let you know .. but it has a long trip to get here.

 

PS you have a PM about 70's reverse project

[dooly]

well the 72 came Super quick and here it is before conservation

 

[dooly]

 

well its had a quick dip and it is starting to show a bit better it defiantly has some movement on the anulett and the two bottom leaves on the R & L 1st clusters

[skippy]

Your '72 does look like a minor DDO. My best guess at the variety is S2-7004 / F-110 / 14-O-IV.

 

If you can take an enlarged closeup of the date and ball above it, I could probably confirm yes or no on that variety.

[dooly]

no problem Howard .. just seen the large v chunk on the stem of the ball

 

[dooly]

On a proper roll lately just purchased this one tonight .. you know when you are in the right place at the right time

 

 

Yes it my 2nd Missing leaf of 2012

 

And not in as bad condition as my 69 picked up not long back not sure on which F number it is as the photo is blurry around the date to see if there is any repunching .. but there are not many 68's which have the date in the ball like this so hopefully when it comes i should be able to ID it

[skippy]

The 1872 is confirmed as S2-7004 / F-110 / 140-O-IV. The clincher is the matching die cracks.

 

MLs are a total pain to attribute. Usually I hope I get lucky and match a die crack. But I don't see any cracks to match on your coin. I came up with 3 possibilities:

 

S1-6002 (F-51)

S1-6006

S1-6007 (F-54)

 

I don't have SNV set up with the longitude lines drawn in. I should consider adding that.

 

[skippy]

Actually, I forgot I do have longitude line capability (so many features even the author forgets about them).

 

I eliminated S1-6002 (F-51).

 

I'm not seeing a marker in your photo that would help me distinguish the two. If you wanted to email me really hi-res photos I could take a shot at it - I don't think fine die lines are showing up in your photos here very well. A close-up of the date would also again be helpful.

[skippy]

Should have said: It's also possible this is neither of the two coins I think I narrowed it down to. MLs are tough.

[dooly]

The 1872 is confirmed as S2-7004 / F-110 / 140-O-IV. The clincher is the matching die cracks.

 

MLs are a total pain to attribute. Usually I hope I get lucky and match a die crack. But I don't see any cracks to match on your coin. I came up with 3 possibilities:

 

S1-6002 (F-51)

S1-6006

S1-6007 (F-54)

 

I don't have SNV set up with the longitude lines drawn in. I should consider adding that.

 

Cheers for that Howard its nice to get the 72 catalogued properly

 

I know what you mean about the ML i am hovering around the 51 .. we will see when it turns up i personally think something has to be done to help id the date position on ML and other hard/close types

 

I have been thinking about it for a while doing the stuff on my posts and first of all i think that Fletchers positions are not simple enough to use to use first of all there is a large gap in the picture in his book in the centre of the 8 .. i think that the measurements need to start in the centre like my diagram below and a more user friendly system of letters/numbers used .. and as you well know the 8 is very rairly straight with the longitudinal line

 

 

Example: (red line longitudinal line)

So would be Enters R1exits R2

 

 

The other options i have been thinking about are the need to use two measuring points

the first is two longitudinal lines

this one would read Flecher 4, My scale 1 at L5, 8 at R1

 

or this one were one line comes from the point on the left arrow to the centre of the cross bar on the 8 and the normal down line, this is quite a visual type and could help draw the eye to the spacing and position of the date to help show the difference's

 

Just my 5 Cents what do you think

 

[skippy]

Dooly, I think you have some interesting ideas about attributing MLs.

 

What would need to be done would be to take your ideas and put them into practice across all of known MLs and see if one of them generated a unique fingerprint.

 

I have not found rotation of the 8 to be a big problem. Generally the 8 is not strongly rotated. In those cases where it is, the rotation itself is a huge clue to the attribution.

 

What works best for me is to find some die marker. Working from photos, especially of lower grade coins, that can be tough.

 

For coins like DDOs, where you applied your measurement ideas in the preceding post, I can almost always attribute them without measuring the date. There are various clues in the DDO, and I'm pretty good at comparing the date position just by eyeballing.

 

In SNV, I have a feature that allows the end user to overlay either horizontal or vertical lines (or both) on the photo and move them around to judge relationships between any two points on the coin the user wants.

[dooly]

hi Howard

 

I think were die markers are not available there needs to be a simple formula that people without specialist knowledge can follow to help the identification. which will be probably be very helpful with new variety's .. the one numbers i am using are like the 8 numbers just the points marked on simmiler points

 

 

I have looked at the simple 66 as there are only 3 in Fletcher

F-25 .. my code 1 enters 0 exits R3, 8 enters R1 Exits R2

 

F-24 .. My code 1 enters R1 exits R3, 8 enters R1 exits R1

 

F-18 .. My code Enters 8 only L3 exits R4

 

I think my conclusion on this very simple group is that this way there is little or no need to look for any die markers which has to make the job a lot simpler even the position of the date in relation to the ball would become less needed

[dooly]

So some kind of "quick" identification guide / key could be produced

 

IE

 

1866

 

8 only

F-18 Enters L3 exits R4

 

1 & 8

F-25 enters 0 exits R3, 8 enters R1 Exits R2

F-24 enters R1 exits R3, 8 enters R1 exits R1

[dooly]

As a example i have looked at my very poor condition 1869 coin which we were having problems identifying.. the die crack is marked but in a normal picture that would have been almost invisible

 

 

so the simple code / key would be

 

1869 WD

 

1 & 8

R1, R1

 

So the two similar ones in fletcher are F-116

My key, 8 only Enters L3 exits L2, enters R1 exits R2

 

F-118

My key 1 & 8 enters R1 exits R2, Enters 0 exits R1

 

So in conclusion the very simmiler F-118 with the die crack like mine is no where near when you use this system

 

IE: mine

1 & 8 R1, R1

F-118

1 & 8 enters R1 exits R2, Enters 0 exits R1

[dooly]

So as a test I am going to use the poor picture of my latest pick up.. as said there are 3 possibility's but i only have two to work with 51 and 54

 

my key

 

1&8 Enters 0 exits R1, Enters R1 exits R2

 

F-51

 

1&8 Enters 0 exits R1, Enters O exits R1

 

F-54

 

1&8 Enters R1 exits R2, Enters R1 exits R2

 

so

0-R1, R1-R2

0-R1, 0-R1

R1-R2, R1-R2

 

so when it arrives i will take a better picture of it and test my conclusion of my key that this is not one of ones listed in Fletcher

[skippy]

That's good work, Dooly, but I think there are some problems in putting it to practical use.

 

1) Not everyone has the capability to produce photos sufficient to do this analysis. It requires photography of the subject coin in order to match reference targets.

 

2) There are many very similar date placements. You would have to go through all of the varieties and verify that the date placement was sufficient to distinguish them.

 

3) Die markers are more reliable than date placement, IMO. Die markers are easier to use than date placement.

 

4) Someone (do I hear a volunteer?) has to analyze the hundreds of extant shield nickel varieties and build the date position database.

 

-----------------------

 

It would probably be more feasible and useful to consider doing your date placement analysis for a limited subset of SN varieties - mostly the MLs.

 

I don't need your system to tell that F-118 is not your coin. I can see it easily. I look at the relationship of the date to the ball. The right side of the ball on F-118 hits more than halfway through the 6 below. The right side of the ball hits halfway or less on your coin. Also, I can't see the shape of the die crack on your coin because it's under your white line, but I would bet I could see a difference between the shape of that and the shape of F-118.

[dooly]

That's good work, Dooly, but I think there are some problems in putting it to practical use.

 

1) Not everyone has the capability to produce photos sufficient to do this analysis. It requires photography of the subject coin in order to match reference targets.

 

2) There are many very similar date placements. You would have to go through all of the varieties and verify that the date placement was sufficient to distinguish them.

 

3) Die markers are more reliable than date placement, IMO. Die markers are easier to use than date placement.

 

4) Someone (do I hear a volunteer?) has to analyze the hundreds of extant shield nickel varieties and build the date position database.

 

-----------------------

 

It would probably be more feasible and useful to consider doing your date placement analysis for a limited subset of SN varieties - mostly the MLs.

 

Thanks Howard ..

 

That is spot on and i would only expect this to be used on very close coins with problems with ID, like ones were die markers are unavailable or to poor to use with confidence I also think it would almost be an imposable job for the whole of the SN but it could help weed out "unlisted" types sitting in collections. I agree Die markers are great "when available" or the person has a good understanding and available reference to pick up on them. and until grading services have all listed and add them to the labels the popularity of the coins are not going to be as appealing to new collectors "which SN" needs to get its rightful place in numismatics .. i think someone (hint hint) needs to take a leaf out of CAC book and offer a sticker type service for these .. i know i would grade more if i could have a confirmed variety like ML sticker on my coins and i think it would cause more interest if and when they turned up for auction .. i have found a lot in my research on auctions sites without information about RPD etc which have slipped through the net.

(do I hear a volunteer?) .. not at the moment as i am working hard on the IIC reverse broken letters type coins at the moment .. and from what i have found out so far that is going to be a book in its self

As for doing it for the ML i could have the ones i have access to done in a few days that would not be an issue .. but it is where it would be a useful place to put it .. maybe at the back of my afore mentioned book on IIC?

 

my 5c

[skippy]

At one time I was the shield nickel attributor for PCI. They got SN attribution right, but they folded.

 

I have offered my services to other major graders (including pointing out how many attribution errors they were making in their slabs), but no one has been interested. Not enough money in it I guess.

 

On Teletrade recently there was an example of a common 1882 with a filled 2 actually slabbed by PCGS as an 1883/2.

[dooly]

Thats a shame Howard .. there loss with someone a knowledgeable as your self .. i think you should get yourself a sticker machine and go private $5 a coin sure they would come in..

 

I do not know how it is possible to get the 3/2 wrong these days its in all the books .. think i will get some filled dies and bang them over and make some money to spend on real errors .. ps only kidding

[dooly]

got the possible transitional 68 reverse today FS# 5c 002.95 Variety 2 (two broken letters) and FS# 5c 002.96 (three broken letters)

 

Close ups of the S looks like it could be to me what do you think ?

[skippy]

That's a definite transitional. Nice find. Haven't seen one before.

 

[dooly]

Cheers Howard .. nice to find something a little bit different..

 

The missing leaf 68 came today from the USA

 

 

 

I think it could be the F-51 but before the die crack emerged ?

 

1&8 Enters 0 exits R1, Enters O exits R1

[skippy]

I can't see anything in the photos that says it isn't F-51 (pre crack, as you said).

 

SNV photos of F-51 also show light cracks radiating from the top of the cross which I can't see in your photo.

 

When you have no die markers at all, my attitude is that if you can't distinguish it from F-51 then it might as well be F-51.