"WEE NIGGLES"1 1 1

[Henri Charriere]

I had an ulterior motive for asking readers what their favorite coins were and why, irrespective of value. Everyone who has been a member since the beginning of the millennium can rattle off the specific interests of a handful of collectors with ease. We instinctively know who has expressed a fondness for tokens, S-G's double eagles, and Lincoln Head cents.  But the vast majority of collectors' interests remain unknown whether by design or coincidence.

 Since our own @VKurtB mentioned the V-nickel, I should be delighted to hear from anyone who can shed some light on the 1883 No CENTS variety which unscrupulous individuals passed off as five-dollar gold pieces via gold-plating to the gullible or uninformed consumer.

I bring this up because by now the educated coin enthusiast knows gold-plated Washington quarters of the state series are novelties with no intent to deceive the public (beyond claiming they are unique and part of a limited legal run.)

The V-nickel, though no longer being minted yielding to the Buffalo Head in 1913, is perfectly legal.  But what makes this gold-plated coin illegal?  Is its mere possession, constructive or otherwise, illegal -- or is its potential to deceive others that makes it a Federal offense?

In short, is it legal to own one?  Is it legal to buy or sell one in good faith?  I ask because I have never seen one or heard of one being offered for sale.

[numisport]

I have owned one. Also many are available on ebay. As a side note I see several available with full detail probably AU.

 

As I remember mine was not heavily plated and may not have been plated at all but was gold colored at least. It is no longer in my possession however.

Note that some are 'With Cents' variety.

 

 

Edited July 6, 2021 by numisport

[Henri Charriere]

@numisport Never occurred to me to check eBay first.  They have a whole slew of such coins they applied a colorful term to: "Racketeer nickels." I am not going to ask the obvious question: How do you differentiate an "original" "wee niggle" from those evidently created in quantity at a later time -- and perhaps,, more importantly, would they be considered damaged and rejected for certification?

[numisport]

These would likely be labeled 'altered surfaces' if genuine and I'll bet Mr. Lange could offer further explanation. Obviously the original deceptive pieces would be of the 'No Cents' variety. The one I owned years ago I think was that variety but was not fresh shiny gold like some appear to be. 

[Oldhoopster]

2 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

@numisport Never occurred to me to check eBay first.  They have a whole slew of such coins they applied a colorful term to: "Racketeer nickels." I am not going to ask the obvious question: How do you differentiate an "original" "wee niggle" from those evidently created in quantity at a later time -- and perhaps,, more importantly, would they be considered damaged and rejected for certification?

I don't know of any way to differentiate between contemporary plating and modern plating.

[Woods020]

My guess would be intent to deceive is the fundamental issue. Counterfeit laws discuss intent. That’s why something with replica or copy is legal, as well as fantasy pieces many feel are legal. It boils down to intent to deceive. Although it would be easy to say a fantasy date coin would deceive many non collectors and new collectors alike. 

[Henri Charriere]

@Oldhoopster  It would be interesting to find out exactly when the deception was first detected and reported.  I assume almost immediately prompting the design of the newer CENTS variety sometime that same year.  Was there a precedent regarding problematic coinage which discouraged a recall or are such undertakings a logistical nightmare?  Either way, as the then Post Office ultimately discovered, publicity would encourage retention.

 

[Oldhoopster]

Good article on the racketeering nickel and the numismatic folklore of Josh Tatum

 

https://coinweek.com/us-coins/fact-or-myth-josh-tatum-and-racketeer-nickels/

[Henri Charriere]

34 minutes ago, Oldhoopster said:

Good article on the racketeering nickel and the numismatic folklore of Josh Tatum

 

https://coinweek.com/us-coins/fact-or-myth-josh-tatum-and-racketeer-nickels/

I am undeserving of the honor you have bestowed upon me with your meticulous research.  It has answered every question I have had since our seasoned member, a/k/a Wee Niggles, made a passing reference to it in a recent discussion of regional dialects. I am much obliged.   

[numisport]

13 hours ago, Oldhoopster said:

Good article on the racketeering nickel and the numismatic folklore of Josh Tatum

 

https://coinweek.com/us-coins/fact-or-myth-josh-tatum-and-racketeer-nickels/

Forgot this article. Great reference piece thank you 

[VKurtB]

20 hours ago, Woods020 said:

It boils down to intent to deceive.

Yes, this. There are two relevant sections two both the counterfeit law AND the Hobby Protection Act. The first section deals with counterfeits made from anything other than a real coin. In that case, intent is irrelevant. A counterfeit is a counterfeit. BUT when it comes to ALTERED COINS, intent to deceive is required for a violation to occur, despite what many on this board may think. The HPA uses different words, to the effect of "which purports to be", but it boils down to if it's obviously wrong, it's not a violation.

Important in the definitions segment of the HPA:

The term "imitation numismatic item" means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item.

Edited July 7, 2021 by VKurtB

[Henri Charriere]

1 hour ago, VKurtB said:

The term "imitation numismatic item" means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item.

Fine distinction; splendid clarification. Thanks.