Shield nickel
United States | |
Value | 5 cents (0.05 US dollars) |
---|---|
Mass | 5.000 g (0.1615 troy oz) |
Diameter | 20.50 mm (0.8077 in) |
Edge | Plain |
Composition | |
Years of minting | 1866–1883 |
Obverse | |
Design | Shield representing the United States |
Designer | James B. Longacre |
Design date | 1866 |
Reverse | |
Design | Denomination surrounded by stars, separated by rays |
Designer | James B. Longacre |
Design date | 1866 |
Design discontinued | 1867 |
Design | Denomination surrounded by stars, rays removed |
Designer | James B. Longacre |
Design date | 1867 |
Design discontinued | 1883 |
The Shield nickel was the first
Silver half dimes had been struck from the early days of the United States Mint in the late 18th century. Those disappeared from circulation, along with most other coins, in the economic turmoil of the Civil War. In 1864, the Mint successfully introduced low-denomination coins, whose intrinsic worth did not approach their face value. Industrialist Joseph Wharton advocated coins containing nickel—a metal in which he had significant financial interests. When the Mint proposed a copper-nickel five-cent piece, Congress required that the coin be heavier than the Mint had suggested, allowing Wharton to sell more of the metal to the government.
Longacre's design was based on his
Background and authorization
Five-cent pieces had been struck by the United States Mint since 1792. They were the first coins struck by Mint authorities.[1] These half dimes (originally spelled "half dismes"), were struck in silver. The alloy used was originally .892 silver with the remainder copper; in 1837 the silver portion was increased to .900.[2]
The
In 1864, Congress had authorized a third series of fractional currency notes. The five-cent note was to bear a portrait of "Clark", but Congress was appalled when the issue came out not bearing a portrait of
Mint Director James Pollock had been opposed to striking coins containing nickel but in view of the initial success of the copper-nickel three-cent piece, he became an advocate of striking five-cent pieces in the same metal. In his 1865 report Pollock wrote, "From this nickel alloy, a coin for the denomination of five cents, and which would be a popular substitute for the five cent note, could easily be made ... [The five cent coin should be struck in base metal] only until the resumption of specie payments ... in time of peace ... coins of inferior alloy should not be permitted to take the place permanently of silver in the coinage of pieces above the denomination of three cents."[6]
Industrialist Joseph Wharton had a near-monopoly on the mining of nickel in the United States and sought to promote its use in coinage.[7] He was also highly influential in Congress. His friends there, though they had failed to obtain the metal's use for the two-cent piece, had been more successful with the three-cent coin.[8] Pollock prepared a bill authorizing a five-cent coin of the same alloy as the three-cent piece and a total weight not to exceed 60 grains (3.9 g). At the committee stage in the House of Representatives, the weight was amended to 77.19 grains (5.00 g), ostensibly to make the weight equal to five grams in the metric system[a] but more likely so that Wharton could sell more nickel.[6] This made the new coin heavy in comparison to the three-cent copper-nickel coin. The bill passed without debate on May 16, 1866.[6] The new copper-nickel coin was legal tender for up to one dollar, and would be paid out by the Treasury in exchange for coin of the United States, excluding the half cent, cent and two-cent. It was redeemable in lots of $100 for banknotes. Fractional currency in denominations of less than ten cents was withdrawn.[9][10]
Design and production
Since coinage was to begin immediately, it was necessary for the Mint's chief engraver,
According to numismatic author
The new coins proved difficult to produce; due to the hardness of the
By late 1869, enough nickels, as the coin came to be called, had been produced to meet the needs of commerce, and production dropped off.[19] The new coins tended to accumulate in the hands of merchants beyond the legal tender limit, but banks refused to accept them beyond the one-dollar maximum. Storeowners were forced to discount the coins to brokers.[10] Postmasters, compelled by law to accept the coins, found that the Treasury would not accept them as deposits except in lots of $100, in accordance with the authorizing statute.[20] In 1871, Congress alleviated the problem by passing legislation allowing the Treasury to redeem unlimited quantities of nickels and other low-denomination coins when presented in lots of not less than $20.[10] It would not be until 1933, long after the shield design passed from the scene, that the nickel was made legal tender without limit.[19]
The
Varieties
The Shield nickel series has yielded a large number of varieties. Howard Spindel, a leading expert on Shield nickels, notes that Shield nickel dies produced far fewer coins than other coin dies, as the dies wore out so fast that the Mint was continually under great pressure to produce new ones. According to Spindel, many dies were hastily and carelessly produced, producing numerous minor varieties.[25]
Bowers points to the 1868 nickel as "a playground for repunching [repunched dates], errors, and the like".[25] Specialists have found more than sixty different doubled die varieties, caused by misalignment when the heated die was repeatedly pressed against the hub to transfer the design. There are several different kinds of repunched dates, including a variety in which the numeral "1" is much smaller than usually found on the Shield nickel.[26]
As with many denominations of United States coins, there are two major varieties of the 1873 piece. The initial variety, known as the "close 3" or "closed 3", was struck first. These coins led to a complaint by the chief coiner, A. Loudon Snowden, to Pollock, who was again director of the Mint. Snowden stated that the numeral "3" in the date too closely resembled an "8". The Mint prepared new date punches, in which the arms of the 3 did not curl around toward the center, creating the second variety, the "open 3".[27]
The final year of production saw an overdate, 1883/2, with a visible "2" under or near the digit "3". This variety was caused by the use of 1882-dated dies which were not destroyed at the end of the year, but were instead repunched with a four-digit logotype, "1883". Five different dies are known to have been so reused, and Bowers estimates a mintage of 118,975 pieces. Spindel estimates that only 0.2%–0.3% of the pieces have survived to the present.[28]
Replacement
The 1867 redesign of the reverse had not solved the problems of short die life and poor striking;
Mintages
Year | Proofs | Circulation strikes |
---|---|---|
1866 | 600+ | 14,742,500[33] |
1867 with rays | 25+ | 2,019,000 |
1867 without rays | 600+ | 28,890,500 |
1868 | 600+ | 28,817,000 |
1869 | 600+ | 16,395,000 |
1870 | 1,000+ | 4,806,000 |
1871 | 960+ | 561,000 |
1872 | 950+ | 6,036,000 |
1873 closed 3 | 1,100+ | 436,050 (est.) |
1873 open 3 | 0 | 4,113,950 (est.) |
1874 | 700+ | 3,538,000 |
1875 | 700+ | 2,097,000 |
1876 | 1,150+ | 2,530,000 |
1877 proof only | 510+ | 0 |
1878 proof only | 2,350 | 0 |
1879 | 3,200 | 25,900 |
1880 | 3,955 | 16,000 |
1881 | 3,575 | 68,800 |
1882 | 3,100 | 11,472,900 |
1883 | 5,419 | 1,451,500 |
Shield nickel proof mintages from before 1878 are modern estimates and may vary—for example, Bowers estimates 800–1,200 for the 1866 piece, while Peters estimates 375+.[34] The issue is complicated by the fact that restrikes were made of proofs, sometimes years after the inscribed date. Mint officials, despite what Bowers terms "official denials (a.k.a. lies)", reused dies which had supposedly been destroyed to strike pieces for favored collectors or dealers. This practice led to incongruous pieces, with a dated obverse mated with a reverse not placed in use until years later.[35]
All pieces struck at the Philadelphia mint, without mintmark.[36]
See also
References
Explanatory notes
- ^ A new U.S. nickel still weighs exactly 5 grams. U.S. Mint, "Coin Specifications"
- ^ a b Peters & Mohon 1995, p. 3. Shield nickel expert Howard Spindel questions whether a pattee was intended, citing differences between the cross used on the coin and a heraldic pattee. Bowers 2006, p. 63.
Citations
- ^ Montgomery et al. 2005, p. 22.
- ^ Taxay 1983, p. 388.
- ^ Taxay 1983, p. 243.
- ^ a b Lange 2006, p. 99.
- ^ a b Breen 1988, p. 246.
- ^ a b c Taxay 1983, p. 244.
- ^ Montgomery et al. 2005, p. 25.
- ^ Taxay 1983, pp. 241–244.
- ^ Peters & Mohon 1995, p. 3.
- ^ a b c d e f Lange 2006, p. 100.
- ^ a b c d Taxay 1983, pp. 244–245.
- ^ Breen 1988, p. 247.
- ^ a b Bowers 2006, p. 54.
- ^ a b Peters & Mohon 1995, p. 16.
- ^ a b Taxay 1983, p. 245.
- ^ Peters & Mohon 1995, p. 4.
- ^ Bowers 2006, p. 67.
- ^ Taxay 1983, pp. 245–246.
- ^ a b Peters & Mohon 1995, p. 5.
- ^ Bowers 2006, p. 75.
- ^ Taxay 1983, p. 258.
- ^ Bowers 2006, p. 77.
- ^ Peters & Mohon 1995, p. 81.
- ^ Peters & Mohon 1995, pp. 76–81.
- ^ a b Bowers 2006, p. 90.
- ^ Bowers 2006, pp. 102–103.
- ^ Bowers 2006, pp. 110–111.
- ^ Bowers 2006, pp. 124–125.
- ^ a b Lange 2006, p. 123.
- ^ Peters & Mohon 1995, pp. 11–12.
- ^ Taxay 1983, p. 285.
- ^ Peters & Mohon 1995, p. 95.
- ^ Yeoman 2017, pp. 132–133.
- ^ Bowers 2006, pp. 78–79.
- ^ Bowers 2006, pp. 81–83.
- ^ Bowers 2006, p. 34.
Bibliography
- ISBN 978-0-7948-1921-7.
- ISBN 978-0-385-14207-6.
- Lange, David W. (2006). History of the United States Mint and its Coinage. Atlanta, Ga.: Whitman Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7948-1972-9.
- Montgomery, Paul; Borckardt, Mark; Knight, Ray (2005). Million Dollar Nickel. Irvine, Ca.: Zyrus Press Inc. ISBN 978-0-9742371-8-3.
- Peters, Gloria; Mohon, Cynthia (1995). The Complete Guide to Shield & Liberty Head Nickels. Virginia Beach, Va.: DLRC Press. ISBN 978-1-880731-52-9.
- Taxay, Don (1983). The U.S. Mint and Coinage (reprint of 1966 ed.). New York, N.Y.: Sanford J. Durst Numismatic Publications. ISBN 978-0-915262-68-7.
- ISBN 978-0-7948-4506-3.
Online
- U.S. Mint. "Coin Specifications". Retrieved 2010-08-25.
External links
- Shield Nickels Website on Shield nickels, maintained by Howard Spindel, an authority on the nickel.