War Nickel Doubled Dies


Many hobbyists collect Jefferson Nickel “war nickels” because in 1942, the U.S. Mint stopped production of the 75% copper and 25% nickel coins, replacing those with a 35% silver coin, as copper-nickel alloys were needed for the Allies in World War II.

Hobbyists also collect war nickels because of the large mintmarks on the reverse.

Toning of the two alloys are similar. But the silver nickel has a different ping and is generally brighter. To tell the difference between alloys, the Mint placed large letters on the reverse above the dome of Monticello. This was the first appearance of a “P” mintmark on any US coin.

If you are a roll hunter or auction bidder, you want to focus on the 1943 DDO and the 1945 DDR. Collect the pair separately because these are the two major doubled dies of the series. They make a great obverse/reverse pair and are plentiful enough to still discover in rolls, and also valuable in higher grades.

1943-P DDO

The hub doubling here can be seen with the naked eye or with a loupe.


Although more of the motto and legend are doubled, you should focus on the stronger ones found in the date and in “Trust.”

This is a coveted coin because of the doubling on Jefferson’s eye, appearing as if he has two left eyes.


The 1943-P war nickel had a mintage of 271,165,000, so hundreds of the doubled dies were released into circulation before the die was changed. PCGS alone has authenticated more than 400 in various conditions, ranging from a value of $50 for low mint state up to $200 in almost uncirculated. You will want to find, bid on or buy an uncirculated sample, which run about $300 in gem MS65.

As you can imagine, scammers on eBay and other venues count on your not knowing how to identify the doubled die. Here’s a classic example. The nickel below is a regular strike, no doubled dies anywhere and no full steps, either.


1945 DDR

The hub doubling also here can be seen with the naked eye or with a loupe.

The 1945-P war nickel had a mintage of 119,408,100, and like its 1943 sister, hundreds of doubled dies were released into circulation before the dies were switched. PCGS alone has authenticated some 300+ examples.


Again, as you can see, the doubling is prominent on “cello” of “Monticello” and on the “E,” “N, “T,” and “S” of “Cents.

Values are typically less than $100 in almost uncirculated, rising to $300 in MS65. You will want to search for, bid on or buy an uncirculated version of this popular coin.

It is important to know the diagnostics, too, because scammers are pretending to sell worn ones with machine doubling, passing them off as DDR. Here’s a prime example:


If you like posts like this, please subscribe so you can get our weekly newsletter and be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.

You can find more information about errors and varieties as well as buying and bidding on coins in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider purchasing the work for yourself or a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist website. Thank you.

eBay Counterfeits Abound


By Jack D. Young

Is it me, or has eBay gotten worse recently with bad listings and counterfeits? Their “reporting” feature seems to just be a façade.

I use the Bay as a counterfeit research tool and post about fakes in several Face Book Groups. Recently I posted an obvious bad fake in a fake “PCGS” slab and asked folk to report it as such to eBay through their standard process.

I had a huge response, with NO ONE getting a favorable return; it seems no matter what, the resulting response was … ”We looked into your report and didn’t find the listing to be in violation of our policy.” These are noted as either by their “AI,” which I call the “BayBots,” or the unknown “customer service agent.” A real shame, as eBay did have a method for a select group to direct report bad listings, and I can confirm MANY listings were removed daily, but that channel has apparently dried up.

To illustrate the current state of the Bay, view the following image of listings found via a standard search for “1881-CC Morgan Dollars,” chosen due to proliferation of counterfeits with that date and mintmark:


A brief description of what is shown here:

#1 is a bad CN counterfeit in a fake PCGS holder; it clearly doesn’t match the genuine example shown on the PCGS site and uses the latest scam, a GreatCollections sticker from an actual auction. I reported this, but a second listing for the same fake showed up from a different seller. This, too, was reported as fake.

I previously wrote an article on this latest scam for Proxiblog and the same coin, different seller (now-counterfeit-greatcollections-labels); the counterfeit’s QR code takes one to the PCGS CN site for the cert, the GC QR takes one to their auction for the genuine example. Comparison image as follows:

Chinese counterfeit, left, and genuine “GC sold” example, right

And #’s 2 and 3, again examples shown shipping from China, these use stock images of genuine coins to sell their fakes.

I have direct experience with these type listings, having purchased a large cent with images of a genuine example in the listing only to receive a common current CN counterfeit. The seller offered a return with shipping costing more than I paid for the “coin.”

#4 is another of the bad CN counterfeit Morgans in a fake PCGS holder. I have written articles as well as participated in an on-line podcast discussing these as they proliferate eBay and other sites currently.

This particular example and listing was reported several times and repeatedly eBay responded it was OK; listing finally ended only to have the seller relist it unchecked for another round.

Relisted/ current Bay listing

The genuine PCGS coin is shown on their cert site with an image that this one isn’t even close to, but it was still active for sale on the Bay.

#’s 5 and 6 are more of a CN seller’s listings using genuine stock images of someone else’s coin and listing. I personally would pick #6 to purchase because it is 4 cents cheaper.

And #7! This seller has a whole boatload of fakes labeled as “Commemorative Coins”; give me a break eBay!

Multiple bad listings from the same Bay CN seller

And his description of his “1885-CC”:

Seller’s listing description

I reported the listing and the seller multiple times and apparently the Bay approves of both.

And so, #8, the real “star” of this group! Another of the “Morgan” Morgan fakes in a counterfeit PCGS holder. This one is currently posted on my personal Face Book page and is also being mass reported by my friends:

Current eBay listed bad “Morgan” Morgan

We have been notified that the listing is A-OK, evidenced by this response to my report:


This all does lead one to wonder if eBay has changed its “Coin Policy” without actually formally stating it, as ALL of these types of listings were previously considered violations? Good for the sellers, bad for the buyers? And what affect does it have on the Hobby at this time? I suppose one can only speculate.

One thing that is not speculation–at one time listings could be reported and REMOVED. And the following are images of fake coins identified in one day’s effort:


Is this a sign of the times for eBay or did someone just fall asleep at the wheel? We’ll continue to watch and report “more fun with fakes” for Proxiblog as we see them!

If you like posts like this, please go to Jack Young’s page on Proxiblog. Also, please subscribe so you can get our weekly newsletter and be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has th0usands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and other social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.

You can find more information about errors and varieties as well as buying and bidding on coins in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider purchasing the work for yourself or a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist website. Thank you.

Extra Leaves and Trees: 2004-D, 2005 P-D-S Quarters


Spring has arrived with farmers planting corn and people planting trees, so perhaps this is the best time to discuss the 2004-D Wisconsin Extra Leaf, low and high, and 2005-P-D-S Minnesota Extra Tree minted on Washington clad quarters.

2004-D Wisconsin Extra Lead Low and High

A die gouge caused the extra leaves on the 2004-D quarters. Mint officials surmised that someone intentionally etched these into the die with a sharp tool. That person did a good job, too, as the extra leaves connect to the corn cob as if so designed.

Here is a closer view:


Estimates are some 2,000 2004-D Wisconsin Extra Leaf Low quarters and 3,000 Extra Leaf High were produced out of a total mintage of 226,800,000. An MS65 Low Leaf quarter is typically valued at around $160; High Leaf, $200.

2005-P-D-S Minnesota Extra Tree

The extra trees are doubled die errors caused by a die fault or shift. There are dozens of varieties (see Wexler’s Die Varieties and Ken Potter’s Doubled Die Listings). In any case, you will need a loupe or coin microscope to verify the doubled dies as these are relatively small.

2005-P Extra Tree

Here’s an easily spotted tree on this error to the right of the fourth tree.


At MS65, the 2005 Minnesota State Quarter with the “extra tree” retails between $150 and $200. No specific estimate on how many escaped the Mint, put many put it in the thousands out of a total mintage of 239,600,000.

2005-D Extra Tree

The extra tree here also is a doubled die error. These are difficult to identify on circulated coins because of wear. Although there are many varieties, as Wexler and Potter document, a desired type displays the extra tree to the right of the state map, seemingly floating like a drone. 


At MS65, the 2005-D Minnesota extra tree quarter typically has a value between $100 and $200. Thousands of the error are thought to have left the mint out of a total mintage of 248,400,000.

2005-S Extra Tree

There are also several varieties of faint doubled dies on the 2005-S Minnesota quarter. See Wexler’s and Potter’s links, referenced earlier, for these. At MS65, these retail for about $40.

If you like posts like this, please subscribe so you can get our weekly newsletter and be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has hundreds of followers on Facebook Coin Groups. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.

You can find more information about errors and varieties as well as buying and bidding on coins in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider purchasing the work for yourself or a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist website. Thank you.

Another 1881-CC “Morgan” Morgan Story


By Jack D. Young

Today’s report is about a recent eBay interaction concerning a counterfeit 1881-CC “Morgan” Morgan dollar.

Recent eBay listing

When I checked, already there was a bid of $585.00 on a “fake in a fake”! And should you not know what I mean by that phrase, see my Live Coin Q&A podcast with numismatist Paula Schommer-Bluhm on this current CN family of fakes:


This particular coin cert has a PCGS TrueView image as well as images in the genuine slab available from a past listed auction as indicated on the PCGS website:


Obviously not a match; so I posted about it in a Facebook Group as Paula did as well, and we both reached out to the seller. My note, images and response as follows:


Counterfeit, left; genuine, right (image courtesy Heritage Auctions)

Paula sent him a link to our joint podcast, and as I didn’t hear back from him initially, I also went through the motions of “reporting’ it to eBay. Recent reports to eBay have been futile, but I tried anyway:


And I received a quick response:


So, the “BayBots” like it–pretty sad for an obvious fake in a fake!
But the silver lining was the seller did respond after reviewing the video and pulled both this and his bad 1883-CC Morgan listings.


So, my lesson here is forget eBay. Continuing with education is the best defense against these for buyers and sellers alike, which is why I do this, and forums like Proxiblog are gaining viewership as we try to continue to “get the word out”!

PS: After the fact, eBay removed the cancelled listing.

If you like posts like this, please go to Jack Young’s page on Proxiblog. Also, please subscribe so you can get our weekly newsletter and be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.

You can find more information about errors and varieties as well as buying and bidding on coins in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider purchasing the work for yourself or a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist website. Thank you.

5 Types of 1878 Morgans


It all began with tail feathers. In 1878, the Morgan Dollar replaced the Trade Dollar with the initial die showing 8 tail feathers on the reverse eagle. Shortly after production began, the Mint altered the tail feathers, superimposing a 7 TF version over the 8 TF. You can believe or dismiss the stories, but the change may have been made because someone pointed out that eagles have one tail feather longer than the other. Dies were altered again to show 7 tail feathers.

Here is a depiction of all three types, compliments PCGS CoinFacts:


Turns out that eagles have 12 tail feathers, not 7 or 8. (Curiously, the 7/8 TF has 12 feathers if you count the doubling.)

The 1878 7/8 variety has two types, strong and weak, depending on the prominence of the doubling. Here’s an illustration:


After everyone agreed to the 7 tail feathers on the reverse, changes then were suggested for the breast of the eagle. One had the 1878 design and the latter, the design of the 1879 reverse. The 1878 has a flat breast; the 1879, a rounded one.

See this PCGS designation:


Now let’s view all of them in one nifty panel to help identification (right click to expand):


You can read a comprehensive article about the number of strikes per variety on PCGS CoinFacts.

As for value, here are current retail/auction prices for various grades, again from CoinFacts:

Values

Be especially careful when bidding on or buying raw coins of these varieties as sellers often misidentify these types.

Here’s a perfect example, an 1878-S (not 1878 Philadelphia) with no doubling on the tail feathers listed as 1878 7/8 TF Strong:


If you like posts like this, please subscribe so you can get our weekly newsletter and be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.

You can find more information about errors and varieties as well as buying and bidding on coins in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider purchasing the work for yourself or a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist website. Thank you.

Counterfeit 1851 C-1 Half Cent


By Jack Riley

New waves of counterfeit coins continue to show up routinely and can be a challenge to keep up with! A recent counterfeit 1851 half cent surfaced online and caught some attention. Pictured below is the counterfeit example (top image) compared to a genuine example (bottom image).

Genuine image courtesy of PCGS

With only one die pair being the C-1 to compare it to, something is clearly off. The reverse letters appear “bubbly” while the letters are not crisp. The obverse stars show similar features, combing that with minor surface issues tells the story. The rims also appear filed down.

Searching more photos led to identifying a total of 4 coins from this potential “family,” with two being offered on various online sites. One example was posted to an online forum in 2018. The subject example for this article was presented on Facebook.

As always in this situation, I search for “Sister Marks” as counterfeit expert Jack Young would call them, repeating circulation marks that are not identifiers for a genuine die pair. That search did not disappoint!

Two obverse depressions on the chin and neck are quick to notice, which led to me referring to this as “Dimple Chin”. The reverse markers include a major depression mark in the “i” of “America” and the “O” in “OF.” A damaged area on the left leg of “H” in “Half” and lump above “A.” The line through A may not be seen on examples with false circulation wear.

Below are the original example and from an online forum. All markers noted are highlighted in red.


Here we have two examples exhibiting false circulation wear. Note the A “Slash” may not be seen.


One may ask “Where do these come from?” You too can purchase one on eBay that ships directly from China!


I’ve personally only seen this on coins dated 1851. It’s very likely other Braided Hair Half Cents exist with both this counterfeit obverse and reverse. Stay diligent friends!

Visit Proxiblog for more articles about counterfeit coins by Michael Bugeja, Jack D. Young and Jack Riley. To receive our free weekly newsletter, please friend us on Facebook and subscribe to Proxiblog.

Notorious Henning Nickel


Beginning hobbyists use the term “no mint mark” because they heard it on social media, believing their Philadelphia coin is a rarity. For decades, the Philly mint was the sole US facility, so no mark was needed. That changed in 1942.

Nickel was needed for the war effort to harden the steel armor of tanks, ships and aircraft. The new variety 1942 “war nickel” was made with an alloy of 56% copper, 35% silver and 9% manganese.

To distinguish one 1942 nickel from the other, the US Mint added the letter “P” to the reverse atop the Monticello device, the first time that mintmark was used. Hobbyists started collecting so-called “war nickels (1942-45) because of the new design and precious metal.

Then, in 1954, people started finding 1944 nickels with missing mintmarks on the reverse. Collectors took note in hope of finding a rarity and did what they normally do, weighing the anomaly. To their surprise, the missing mintmark nickel weighed 5.4 grams rather than 5 grams.

The Secret Service was alerted about a possible counterfeiter. The agency knew reputed ones and scanned their files, leading to the arrest of this man, Francis Leroy Henning.


Henning had been incarcerated earlier because he counterfeited $5 bills, worth about $60 in today’s money. Perhaps he thought he could get away with faking a lower denomination, like a nickel. , Authorities discovered that he had faked nickels dated 1939, 1944, 1946, 1947 and 1953.

If you are interested in learning more about the Henning nickel, purchase or ask your library to acquire Joseph P. Cronin’s 2024 book, The Henning Nickel Collectors’ Guide. CoinWeek has a nifty article by Tyler Rossi.

You also can find detailed diagnostics about Henning nickels at Error-Rev.com.

The Proxiblog article simplifies the hunting process and warns against scammers on eBay.

So if you’re roll hunting or sifting through pocket change, the two things you need to remember to find Henning nickels are the missing mintmark on 1944 and the larger weights, 5.4 grams, on all nickels dated 1939, 1944, 1946, 1947 and 1953.

You won’t find uncirculated Henning nickels because he used circulated transfer dies.

ICG holders counterfeit Henning Nickels, as shown below:


Typically these retail anywhere from $250-600.

Be wary of raw coins on eBay claiming to be Henning nickels. You’ll find altered reverses in the 1944 nickel. If sellers do not reference weight, do not bid on or buy the raw coin. If they do mention weight, still make sure that they accept returns. Your scale is the one that matters.

Here’s a sketchy example on eBay:


The seller writes, “Coin weighs 4.4 grams. We believe it to be a Henning nickel and not minted by the US. Nickel is porus (sic), smaller and lighter than a regular Jefferson nickel. Is not graded and we do not guarantee it to be a US nickel or a Henning though we strongly suspect it to be the latter.”

If you read this far, you know from the above description that this is not a Henning nickel, as the seller put down 4.4 grams instead of 5.4 grams. And of course, the seller doesn’t accept returns.

If you like posts like this, please subscribe so you can get our weekly newsletter and be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has hundreds of followers on Facebook Coin Groups. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.

You can find more information about errors and varieties as well as buying and bidding on coins in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider purchasing the work for yourself or a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist website. Thank you.

1942/1 and 1942/1-D Key Date Dimes


The 1942/1 and 1942/1-D Mercury dimes are among the most desired dates of the series, with the overdates visible with the naked eye or a loupe. Both dimes, however, are frequently counterfeited or altered. So it is important to note the diagnostics explained in this article.

1942/1

The 1942/1 Mercury dime is one of the most popular overdates in U.S. coinage. Better still, this Philadelphia date has a huge mintage of 205,410,000, with estimates as high as 4,000 overdates surviving and making their way into commerce, rolls and bank bags.

The overdate is obvious, especially in higher grades, as this PCGS CoinFacts photo demonstrates:


This error occurred when the 1941 die was impressed by a 1942-dated hub.

Retail values in Good 6-8 average about $300, rising to$500+ in Very Fine and $1,000+ in Almost Uncirculated. In low mint state, the dime sells for between $3,000-$5,000. The overdate is a condition rarity in higher mint state grades.

Altered coins are plentiful, especially by adding a “1” to the “2,” as in this example, compliments of NGC:


1942/1-D

Like its 1942/1 sister, the Denver overdate is not an ultra rarity, with 3,200 believed to have survived out of a mintage of 60,740,000.

If you are inspecting a lower mint state example, you will need a loupe or coin microscope to identify the overdate. Look at the left top and bottom of the two for telltale signs of the “1.”


Retail prices for dimes in Good to Fine sell for around $300, rising above $500 in Very Fine to Extra Fine. In Almost Uncirculated, specimens sell for $1,000+. Again like its sister 1942/1 dime, mint state examples sell in the thousands and are considered condition rarities.

Be on the lookout for the same type of altered date as in the 1942/1 example mentioned earlier. But an even greater concern involves fake tokens cast from genuine coins. You can buy these tokens for under $20 on Etsy.


The risk here is not only buying from Etsy but buying an Etsy token billed as genuine and sold on popular venues such as eBay.

Also when on the Bay, don’t be fooled by worn 1942 dimes being billed as 1942/1 varieties. Here’s an example with no overdate:


Because of the prevalence of counterfeit, cast, altered and misidentified 1942/1 dimes, do not bid on or buy raw overdate coins from online sellers. In this case, buy the holder, not the coin, from PCGS, NCG, ANACS and CAC.

If you like posts like this, please subscribe so you can get our weekly newsletter and be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and other social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.

You can find more information about errors and varieties as well as buying and bidding on coins in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider purchasing the work for yourself or a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist website. Thank you.


Deceptive 1916-D Mercury Dimes


By Jack D. Young

Proxiblog has encountered several fake 1916-D Mercury Dimes on eBay and elsewhere and asked our counterfeit expert, Jack D. Young, to share his lengthy file of bad examples.

Jack begins by stating NGC lists the 1916-D as the No. 2 most counterfeited coin in their top 50 U.S. coins, just behind No. 1, the 1909-S VDB!

From NGC’s web site- Counterfeit Detection

One of my first articles for Proxiblog was on counterfeiters using Great Collection’s auction labels to add credibility to their bad coins. A counterfeit 1916-D Mercury Dime in a fake PCGS holder is shown with a GC label from a genuine 1926-D dime auction. The same “coin” was also the subject of a Coin Week article I had previously written so a good choice to show in this article. The original eBay listing as follows:

A rather poor choice for the counterfeiters, the PCGS cert # used shows a link to the genuine example sold in a past Heritage auction:

PCGS on-line certification site

Comparison images of this listed example and the genuine one show this as a bad miss (or mess)! And you can see the stuck-on GC label on the counterfeit (note: genuine on the right):

So, we can see pretty quickly the bad slab coin is suspect, but what about the “coin” itself?

I cut the reverse image from the listing and reoriented it for a better comparison view:

Reverse image of the subject slabbed example

As I always say when reviewing a subject coin, ATTRIBUTION is the key! And with help from a few friends I pulled this template together of the 4 known reverses/mint-mark positions and shapes for use in evaluation of the 1916-D. I have added this example in the middle of the template for a good comparison of good versus bad.

Template of four good mintmark positions and bad one in the middle.

And at a glance this one is confirmed not good; eBay actually removed this listing at the time as bad as well.

OK, so a current counterfeit coin in a current counterfeit TPG holder and a stuck-on GC label, pretty much all the bells and whistles on this one, so what next?

How about an actual replica! And a note, I know (and am occasionally guilty of) the word “counterfeit” is used on various nefarious bad coins so excuse me if I refer to this next one as counterfeit as well. Language in US counterfeit law speaks to “intent” to defraud and this one appears to have been altered (removed “COPY”) in an attempt to meet that criteria!

Maybe a little pricy for a raw example, certainly too much for this one!

I notified both the Bay and the seller; can’t speak to what he was thinking–“electron microscope,” maybe?

eBay listing images

OK, so on to another “type”! This one is a genuine coin, but NOT a genuine 1916-D Mercury Dime.

A friend purchased this one knowing what it is and posted in one of the FB Groups I am a member.

Not a very convincing altered date!

And the last “type” for discussion, the dreaded “added mintmark.”

Bay seller knew what he had and in hindsight I wish I had purchased it myself!

Bay listing
Seller’s description

And his images:

Bay listing images

And how does the mintmark look in my template? Kind of like a blob!

Template comparison

And the TPG didn’t like it:

TPG evaluation

So ends the latest journey of more “Fun with Fakes” (FwF) and Proxiblog. It is getting really hard to keep up with all the ways scammers and their ilk continue to challenge the hobby.

If you like posts like this, please go to our counterfeit archive with reports from Jack Riley, Jack D. Young, John Lorenzo and Michael Bugeja. Also, please subscribe so you can get our weekly newsletter and be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has hundreds of followers on Facebook Coin Groups. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.

You can find more information about errors and varieties as well as buying and bidding on coins in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider purchasing the work for yourself or a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist website. Thank you.

Types I, II of Popular Coins


On occasion, the U.S. Mint halts production and redesigns a coin for a variety of reasons, from die flaws to artistic opinion. Hobbyists often collect all types of a given series, especially in popular denominations. They also know which type is more valuable.

We’ll do that here.

1913 Types I & II Buffalo Nickel

A few months after its release, the Mint noticed that the reverse denomination “FIVE CENTS” was wearing down too to quickly. The mound gave it no protection.


Later in the year the Mint changed the design and created a recess below the buffalo, thereby extending the life of the denomination.


As for value, 1913 Type I at MS63 retails for about $110; 1913-D, $200; 1913-S, $350. Type II values are greater, again at MS63: 1913, $150; 1913-D, $450; 1913-S, $1,575.

The challenge for hobbyists is assembling a mint state set of all six mints.


1942 Types I and II, Jefferson Nickel

The reason for two types of 1942 nickels had nothing to do with the design; it had to do with the metal. The Mint produced Type 1 with a regular nickel composition, and Type 2, considered a “wartime” nickel, with a silver alloy to conserve nickel for the war effort. To distinguish Type I from Type II, the Mint added a “P” mintmark on the reverse.


Most hobbyists are fond of Type II because of the silver; but retail values at MS65 for both coins are about $50.


1917 Types I & II Standing Liberty Quarter

The 1917 Standing Liberty Quarter design featured Lady Liberty with a bare breast on the obverse. Some say the public thought the display was indecent. So the coin was redesigned, covering up the naked breast with chain mail.


The Mint also changed the reverse, moving three stars from the rim to below the eagle.

As for value, the 1917 Type I in MS63 retails for $475; 1917-D, $625; and 1917-S, $650. Type II values at MS 63 are $360, 1917; $575, 1917-D; and $600, 1917-S.


1976 Eisenhower Dollar, Types I and II

The 1976 dollar is not the only year of different types in the series. You can read about 1972, Types I, II and III, by clicking here.

The Bicentennial Dollar had a one-year reverse design, featuring the Liberty Bell in front of the moon. Later in the year the Mint decided to change the font from a thicker lettering to a thinner one.


Because of weaker strikes, Type 1 is considered the more valuable coin, meaning any high mint state example is scarce. Values for Type I, P and D, range from $100-$200; Type II, P and D, from $50-$100.


If you like posts like this, please subscribe so you can get our weekly newsletter and be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.

You can find more information about errors and varieties as well as buying and bidding on coins in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider purchasing the work for yourself or a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist website. Thank you.