1866 3cn 1 1

[scopru]

Thoughts on what caused this? It straight graded.

 

Edited November 16, 2020 by scopru

[Henri Charriere]

2 minutes ago, scopru said:

Thoughts on what caused this? It straight graded.

 

This straight-graded?  As what?  What about the meteor shower that obliterated whole letters? What about the reverse?

[scopru]

It straight graded at MS63.  That is not the reason for my question though.  I am not asking about is "pretty factor" as it's a mangy dog in my mind.

I am seeking some feedback as to what might have caused this.  I think several things are at play.  But in the bigger scheme of things I am not certain on any so am asking for feedback without skewing peoples opinions with what mine are. 

Any thoughts?  

Edited November 16, 2020 by scopru

[Henri Charriere]

["Wind shear" is the term used in NTSB aviation accident reports; I don't know the equivalent term in numismatics. 😉]

[Moxie15]

 I can think of no mint process at the mint that would cause the marks.

Maybe a seriously corroded die 

[physics-fan3.14]

3 hours ago, scopru said:

It straight graded at MS63.  That is not the reason for my question though.  I am not asking about is "pretty factor" as it's a mangy dog in my mind.

I am seeking some feedback as to what might have caused this.  I think several things are at play.  But in the bigger scheme of things I am not certain on any so am asking for feedback without skewing peoples opinions with what mine are. 

Any thoughts?  

Your coin exhibits a classic, if somewhat severe, case of "roller marks." Extremely common, detracts from grade and value, and rather unattractive. The marks occur when the planchet is being rolled to the proper thickness. 

Its not common to see a coin as completely obscured by these marks as your coin is, but it's also more commonly seen on larger coins where the same amount of marks would be considered less severe. 

[MarkFeld]

14 minutes ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

Your coin exhibits a classic, if somewhat severe, case of "roller marks." Extremely common, detracts from grade and value, and rather unattractive. The marks occur when the planchet is being rolled to the proper thickness. 

Its not common to see a coin as completely obscured by these marks as your coin is, but it's also more commonly seen on larger coins where the same amount of marks would be considered less severe. 

Jason, do you think it might be a rusted die too?

[physics-fan3.14]

32 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

Jason, do you think it might be a rusted die too?

Mark, a rusted die exhibits as a pimply surface, and does not give streaks like shown. I see no evidence of a rusted die here. I honestly think what I'm seeing on this coin is a planchet issue 

[MarkFeld]

9 minutes ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

Mark, a rusted die exhibits as a pimply surface, and does not give streaks like shown. I see no evidence of a rusted die here. I honestly think what I'm seeing on this coin is a planchet issue 

I agree about the planchet issue. I thought there might also be some signs of a rusted die, based on portions of the obverse portrait and some of the obverse lettering. It might just be the images, though.

[scopru]

Sorry for the photo quality.  I took these some time ago and just thought to put them up here to see what you all think. Thanks for the feedback.   

[Conder101]

Looks like planchet striations (roller marks) and incomplete striking possibly from improperly annealed planchets.  If so I would expect to see marks on the reverse as well. (Improper annealing as in the planchets were improperly softened and so were harder than normal resulting in an incomplete strike and poor die fill.  This resulted in the roller marks being prominent on the devices and fairly well flattened in the fields.)

Edited November 17, 2020 by Conder101

[RWB]

1. The coin is weakly struck, as was often the case for 3-cent CuNi pieces.

2. Evidently there was considerable difficulty in rolling alloy strips from the M & R's ingots. Several annealings were typical and at this early stage of the CuNi learning curve, the Mint had not learned how to best handle this alloy.

3. The final strip was run through a drawbench that had dirty or damaged dies. This left surface abrasions (incorrectly called "roller marks") on the metal strip.

4. Blanks were cut from the damaged strip and probably annealed again before being run through the upset mill, then passed to the coining room for stamping.

Evidently the blank for this coin was improperly annealed and the result was a poorly defined design with surface abrasions evident, especially on low areas of the die.

Pervasive problems with copper-nickel alloy led to purchases of blanks for 3-cent and 5-cent pieces from Booth & Hayden in Waterbury, CT  by November 1866. (The nickel came from Joseph Wharton's plant in New Jersey.)

Edited November 19, 2020 by RWB

[RWB]

Note also that deceptive counterfeit 3-cent copper-nickel pieces were in circulation. They were usually made from copper-nickel-zinc alloy. Inconsistent quality of minor coins from the Philadelphia Mint helped encourage counterfeiting - the public had trouble telling good coins from bad.

[Henri Charriere]

On 11/16/2020 at 5:26 PM, scopru said:

 

I am seeking some feedback as to what might have caused this.  I think several things are at play.  But in the bigger scheme of things I am not certain on any so am asking for feedback without skewing peoples opinions with what mine are. 

Any thoughts?  

[Now that our learned colleague RWB has weighed in with what appears to be a highly plausible and credible explanation of what he believes was responsible for the damage (and in so doing, totally debunking my meteor shower theory) I can't imagine a likelier scenario, IMHO.]

[scopru]

Thanks Roger for that very thorough explanation. 

[James_OldeTowne]

There are better-crafted explanations already posted.  Basically, it looks to me like the dies were too far apart when the coin was struck, or the planchet was a little too thin.  At any rate, the net striking pressure wasn't adequate to strike out the as-made striations.

[RWB]

A letter from 1880 concerning suspected counterfeit 3 cent nickels notes:

"The five 3-cent pieces sent for examination are all genuine and herewith returned.
"The only piece liable to suspicion is one which weighs 36-1/2 grains (wrapped by itself). The legal weight is 30, with allowance of 2; which we often use in order to have a better body of metal. We cannot, however, attain the same precision as in gold or silver, the nickel alloy being harder to work. However, this piece is genuine, with this apology. Generally we believe they are about 30 to 32 [grains weight]."
 

Earlier correspondence confirms that 3 cent nickel pieces were "often" cut  to the high end of tolerance, or above, to help get a better impression from the dies. (There are no similar comments for nickels.)

 

Edited November 19, 2020 by RWB

[RWB]

Regarding counterfeit 3 cent nickels, the Philadelphia Mint Assayer commented in 1881:

The assistant Assayer has completed an examination (chemical) of the 3 cent counterfeits
and finds them composed of copper, nickel, and zinc; say copper 65, nickel 20, zinc 15 percent.
This is quite different from the legal alloy, copper 75, nickel 25. No doubt the zinc is used to
bring down the melting point, and thus to facilitate the working. It does not materially change
the tint, although it is a true “German Silver,” such as is used in the inferior coins of
Switzerland. It is not softer or more ductile than our binary alloy.