1879 5c PR CAM

Key to Collecting: The 1879 Shield nickel is very rare in Mint State, but the market value is lower than expected, as Proofs are readily available and, indeed, are plentiful in the context of Proofs of the era. Mint State pieces are somewhat prooflike, rendering historical auction listings unreliable for research purposes. Moreover, one die pair was used to make both Proofs and circulation strikes. In worn grades the 1879 is very elusive, and a key to the series.

Proofs are easy enough to find, and are usually of nice strike and eye appeal. Many have repunching at the 9 and are attributed as “1879, 9 Over 8” by some. In my opinion, however, such coins are from a regular 1879 die with slight repunching.

Characteristics and Appearance: Well struck, with satiny luster and somewhat prooflike, easily confused with Proofs. David W. Lange commented,

Characteristics and Appearance: Usually well struck, with mirror surfaces and good contrast. Proofs have mirror edges (when viewed edge-on), while circulation strikes do not; this can help differentiate Proofs and circulation strikes of the same die pair. Some Proofs have a doubled date (F-01; see below) and are especially interesting (one in the Walter Childs Collection, sold in 1999, had been kept in the same family since it was ordered from the Mint). Another variety is B-2414, discussed below.

One obverse die, apparently comprising about 40% of the production run of Proofs, has a repunched 9 and is sometimes called an overdate (see below). Two Proof obverse dies are described by Edward L. Fletcher Jr.; one of these was later used to make circulation strikes. Peters and Mohon describe five different obverse dies—the “overdate” plus four with regular date. For dies with the date deeply punched, the numerals are close together, while lighter impressions have wider spacing.

Doubled Date—F-01 (Proof) and 02 (same die used to make circulation strikes; FS-unlisted). Sharply repunched, with the lighter, earlier date slightly west of the final date—most noticeable to the left of the 1 in 1879.

So-Called Overdate “1879, 9 Over 8”—Breen-2414; FS-unlisted. Confirmed only with Proof finish, although Breen (Encyclopedia, 1988) mentions two circulation strikes and further mentions that there are “at least two varieties.” Overdate status not determined, but likely a regular 1879 with slight repunching. Last digit with repunching within 9, said by Walter Breen to be an overdate, and long cataloged as such by many numismatists. However, in connection with the present study, I have been unable to match the 1878 logotype with the repunching in the 9, and there is no trace of the prominent lower-outside-right bulge of an 8 at the 9 of B-2414. In conversation with a numismatic expert at a leading grading service, Breen agreed wholeheartedly, adding, “but people want to call it an overdate anyway.” On the other hand, Thomas K. DeLorey believes it is a true overdate.30 Howard Spindel comments,

R.W. Julian advised that there is no record of any 1878 obverse dies having been destroyed, although five obverse dies of 1878 had been made.32 If this is a fact (Mint records occasionally are erroneous), this would strengthen the case for an 1879, 9 Over 8 overdate. Perhaps a high-resolution image overlay—one of these and an 1878 logotype—would resolve the question.

According to Julian, records state that in January 1880, six obverse dies of 1879 were destroyed. Could these have included some dated 1878? Such are the intrigues of Shield nickel research!