NGC: Serious attention needed with Five Cent Nickel type sets!

[Hoot]

Howdy NGC-ites

 

I was having a look at the five cent nickel type set (Type Sets > Nickel Five Cents Type Set) and realized that it has not been updated since 2004! Currently, the set has the following categories:

 

Slot Description:

5c SHIELD, WITH RAYS 1866-67

5c SHIELD, NO RAYS 1867-83

5c LIBERTY HEAD, NO CENTS 1883

5c LIBERTY HEAD, WITH CENTS 1883-1913

5c INDIAN HEAD/BUFFALO, TYPE 1 1913

5c INDIAN HEAD/BUFFALO, TYPE 2 1913-38

5c JEFFERSON, COPPER-NICKEL 1938-

5c JEFFERSON, SILVER 1942-45

5c JEFFERSON, WESTWARD JOURNEY 2004-2005

 

The above categories are incomplete in the following ways:

 

1) The Felix Schlag Jefferson nickel subtype ended in 2003. So, the JEFFERSON, COPPER-NICKEL 1938- category should now be:

 

5c JEFFERSON, COPPER-NICKEL 1938-2003

 

2) The Westward Journey nickels are FOUR distinct subtypes. (Actually, one could argue that there are two distinct types, given the extent of the reverse modifications, each with two subtypes. The 2005 issues are, without a doubt, a distinct type with two subtypes.) These subtypes are vastly more distinct than the “with rays” and “no rays” shield nickels subtypes OR the “no cents” and “with cents” Liberty nickel subtypes. The WESTWARD JOURNEY nickels should be the following four slots:

 

5c JEFFERSON, WESTWARD JOURNEY 2004 HANDSHAKE

5c JEFFERSON, WESTWARD JOURNEY 2004 KEELBOAT

5c JEFFERSON, WESTWARD JOURNEY 2005 BISON

5c JEFFERSON, WESTWARD JOURNEY 2005 OCEAN IN VIEW

 

3) We now have a distinctly new subtype, the Jefferson 1800 nickel (as the Mint calls it). Thus, we need the additional category:

 

5c JEFFERSON, JEFFERSON 1800: 2006-present

 

Parting comment:

 

Naturally, for the coins dated 2005, 2006 and beyond, presumably, the circulation finish should be distinctly scored versus the “SMS” or “satin” finish of the Mint sets. (Satin finish coins consistently grade higher, so they should be scored less per grade than the circulation strikes.) Proofs will, of course, continue to be scored separately.

 

Thanks for listening! Hoot

[Beijim]

I concur with Hoot and thank him for drafting this proposal so nicely.

 

Beijim

[Oldtrader3]

Aargh, Hoot! Now I will have to submit (3) more Lewis and Clark nickels for certification? Although, I have to admit that they are needed.

[Hoot]

Aargh, Hoot! Now I will have to submit (3) more Lewis and Clark nickels for certification? Although, I have to admit that they are needed.

 

Don't worry Charlie -- NGC seems to be completely ignoring this thread, even though I pointed out the issue to Scott Schechter at the ANA show and he said he'd look into it. So, don't expect change any time soon.

 

Hoot

[HaydenTubbs]

Aargh, Hoot! Now I will have to submit (3) more Lewis and Clark nickels for certification? Although, I have to admit that they are needed.

 

Probably can find them cheaper on eBay...

[Jay Turner]

We are not ignoring the thread, it is simply a matter of time and priory.

[HaydenTubbs]

We are not ignoring the thread, it is simply a matter of time and priory.

 

<<Religious residence in a monastery governed by a prior or a convent governed by a prioress>>

 

You guys are having monks work on your registry now?

[Jay Turner]

I wouldn’t really call myself a Monk.

[Coin]

I wouldn’t really call myself a Monk.

 

No , but I would call you a SAINT ! You have the patience of an immortal ! Jay , you are one heck of a guy if I do say so . Having met you and watching you work with the public at an earlier Baltimore show , I am really impressed with how well you help others and never look frustrated , even when the most simple questions are asked . I think you are truly an asset to the hobby and especially to NGC .

What on Earth do you you do to look so calm all the time ? Do you go home after a show and blast trees with high explosives to relieve stress or something? You are either one incredibly friendly person or you indeed work surrounded by Monks as Hayden suggests . My wife said 'that guy (pointing towards you) sure is calm ( while you were explaining that a severly damaged crusty toned mint set did not appear to be one that would be gradeable to a customer that could not be swayed to accept that it was not a gold-mine super toned set worth thousands...you never put his set down with any choice words and even offered NCS as a possible route to save them , to which he got up disgusted and stomped off.....you didn't even blink an eye and wished him well anyway!) . I probably woulda been asking NGC for bail money after dealing with a guy like that and the way he spoke....yeup you are truly a Saint .

Please take the compliment with a smile and pat yourself on the back Jay.

[Hoot]

We are not ignoring the thread, it is simply a matter of time and priory.

 

So, have you monks at the NGC Monastery had some time to cloister around this idea yet?

 

 

Hoot

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MikeKing]

I wouldn’t really call myself a Monk.

 

No , but I would call you a SAINT ! You have the patience of an immortal ! Jay , you are one heck of a guy if I do say so . .

 

I don't even know the guy and I already like him.

 

ps

Hoots the man when it comes to these things so straighten up and fly right and do what he says.

[Hoot]

Thanks Mike!

 

 

Hoot

[Hoot]

We are not ignoring the thread, it is simply a matter of time and priory.

 

 

Hoot

[Jay Turner]

The time is 10PM on a Monday night and while the priority is still zero, I added the slot to the type set.

 

Jay Turner

NGC Grader and Attributor

[Hoot]

The time is 10PM on a Monday night and while the priority is still zero, I added the slot to the type set.

 

Jay Turner

NGC Grader and Attributor

 

Aren't you just the nicest fellow, Jay? I'm glad to know that being a patient and contributing collector here ranks as zero. Thanks for adding the slot, but you may want to consider the entire category, as outlined in my first post, to make some sense of the set.

 

Hoot

[Jay Turner]

The State Quarters are not broken down into sub-categories in the type set registry. I don’t see why the Westward Journey Nickels should be. To do so it would make them 40% of the registry. Should a nickel set completeness relay on coins issued in the last three years?

[Hoot]

The State Quarters are not broken down into sub-categories in the type set registry. I don’t see why the Westward Journey Nickels should be. To do so it would make them 40% of the registry. Should a nickel set completeness relay on coins issued in the last three years?

 

The question is not a matter of when the types were issued, it's a matter of type. The Shield nickel with rays subtype was issued in 1866 and 1877 alone, which does not diminish its status in the set, yet the subtype is important to type collectors of nickels. The Liberty Head nickel "no CENTS" subtype was issued only in 1883, yet the subtype is important to type collectors of nickels. The buffalo nickel "on mound" subtype was issued only in 1913, yet this is important to type collectors of nickels. Just because the designs were changed rapidly in the course of a couple of years does not diminish the clear distinctions of subtype and type that have been made. To lump all "Westward Journey" (a theme not a type) nickels into a single type (or subtype) category is to diminish recognition of important circulating design changes. It makes no sense. And truthfully, the same applies to "state quarters" (another theme not a type).

 

It may be unfortunate circumstance to the type collector that the Mint decided on the rapid changes of recent years, but it's an undeniable fact. The registry, to my understanding, was designed to a large extent with the traditions of collecting in mind. When it comes to type collecting, those traditions should be followed and reflected in the establishment of sets. The willy-nilly assignment of equivalence of four distinct subtypes (two types) as a single "type" for the "Westward Journey" nickels in the set makes no sense when reflecting on the earlier issues of shield, Liberty, and buffalo nickels (as outlined above).

 

Hoot

[TomB]

The Shield nickel with rays subtype was issued in 1866 and 1877 alone

Uhhh...Hoot...if you have a with rays 1877 Shield nickel you may want to get that baby certified.

[Hoot]

The Shield nickel with rays subtype was issued in 1866 and 1877 alone

Uhhh...Hoot...if you have a with rays 1877 Shield nickel you may want to get that baby certified.

 

When I get one, it will be certified. It's THE coin of the shield type, IMO. Having the two subtypes from 1877 is all I want for shields (sorry IGWT!).

 

Hoot

[IGWT]

The Shield nickel with rays subtype was issued in 1866 and 1877 alone

Uhhh...Hoot...if you have a with rays 1877 Shield nickel you may want to get that baby certified.

 

When I get one, it will be certified. It's THE coin of the shield type, IMO. Having the two subtypes from 1877 is all I want for shields (sorry IGWT!).

 

Hoot

 

I've got to get over to this forum more often. For those who are counting, although there are two reverse subtypes for business strike '67s, there are three reverse subtypes for proof '67s, and the rarest is not the w/rays variety.

 

I would very much like to see an 1877 5c w/rays, and I might even pay a slight premium for one. Oh, and BTW Hoot, your reasoning on the need for the inclusion of all recent subtypes is indisputable.

[Hoot]

I would very much like to see an 1877 5c w/rays, and I might even pay a slight premium for one.

 

I've had several made up recently.

 

there are three reverse subtypes for proof '67s, and the rarest is not the w/rays variety

 

Do tell more!

 

BTW Hoot, your reasoning on the need for the inclusion of all recent subtypes is indisputable.

 

Thanks!

 

Hoot

[IGWT]

Do tell more!

 

Let me begin with J-507:

 

 

Compare the reverse of J-507 with the reverse of this '67 proof:

 

 

Now compare that reverse with the vast majority of the other 600 or so '67 w/o rays proofs:

 

(This one is not my coin)

 

Coincidentally, Howard Spindel just published an article on this subject in November's Numismatist. The editors messed up, though, because they misidentified a picture of a regular w/o rays reverse as a prototype reverse.

[zrlevin]

They all look the same to me.

 

Could you point out the differences? Is it the "N" in "CENTS"?

[IGWT]

They all look the same to me.

 

Could you point out the differences? Is it the "N" in "CENTS"?

 

The reverses in the first and the second pictures are the same. That reverse differs from the third in many ways. The most obvious are the positions of the stars relative to the letters. For example, compare where the stars point to the letters in CENTS.

[zrlevin]

I see. Thanks!

[Oldtrader3]

Now that I have acquired or sent all the Westward Bound and return to Monticello nickels in for grading, they are not going to include them in the nickel type set???? After all NGC has a War Nickel type set that is pretty short. Maybe they need a separate set for Westward Bound nickels?

 

They are distinct types each with different reverses, which IMHO makes them eligible type coins for the nickel type set. However, what do I know. I have only been collecting nickels for 45 years!