1943S Shilling Struck on US Nickel Planchet

Robster · April 03, 2013, 01:18:09 PM

Good info- following with interest.!!

Fulvio · April 03, 2013, 03:09:15 PM

PCGS authentication is only going to drive the price up, not down.

Pity. I'd be interested, but its already over what I could justify.

Mister T · April 03, 2013, 06:27:32 PM

Quote from: 'enworb' pid='11198' dateline='1364810021'I assume the alloy content is from one of those XRF thingys. I saw one show 62% for an Aussie florin once. Might be the machine rather than the coin?

Didn't .500 florins originally get struck on acid-treated planchets? It might be that the surface appeared to have a higher silver content than the rest of the coin.

Quote from: 'markn' pid='11200' dateline='1364811873'We had our error tested on two different XRF machines and they gave very different results.

How different were the results?

markn · April 03, 2013, 07:36:19 PM

Quote from: 'Mister T' pid='11317' dateline='1364975852'
Quote from: 'enworb' pid='11198' dateline='1364810021'I assume the alloy content is from one of those XRF thingys. I saw one show 62% for an Aussie florin once. Might be the machine rather than the coin?

Didn't .500 florins originally get struck on acid-treated planchets? It might be that the surface appeared to have a higher silver content than the rest of the coin.

Quote from: 'markn' pid='11200' dateline='1364811873'We had our error tested on two different XRF machines and they gave very different results.

How different were the results?

I recall the silver and copper percentage being a lot different. Ours was sent to PCGS in the hope that they'd certify it as being struck on a war nickel. They did not.

acrellin · April 04, 2013, 12:20:30 PM

Mark - did PCGS specify why they didn't attribute the coin as an off-metal strike? I'm wondering if it's because they agree that it's an "orphan" planchet as indicated by the gents on the error coin forum.

Quote from: 'markn' pid='11322' dateline='1364979979'
Quote from: 'Mister T' pid='11317' dateline='1364975852'
Quote from: 'enworb' pid='11198' dateline='1364810021'I assume the alloy content is from one of those XRF thingys. I saw one show 62% for an Aussie florin once. Might be the machine rather than the coin?

Didn't .500 florins originally get struck on acid-treated planchets? It might be that the surface appeared to have a higher silver content than the rest of the coin.

Quote from: 'markn' pid='11200' dateline='1364811873'We had our error tested on two different XRF machines and they gave very different results.

How different were the results?

I recall the silver and copper percentage being a lot different. Ours was sent to PCGS in the hope that they'd certify it as being struck on a war nickel. They did not.

purplepennyhunter · April 04, 2013, 01:31:14 PM

It was simply attributed as a foreign planchet and they determined the composition as 55%Ag 42%Cu 2.8%Mn 4.94g. This was different to what (Unico) XRF testing had told us previously (sorry can't recall exactly what that was).
It slabbed up as AU55.

enworb · April 04, 2013, 02:20:51 PM

Unico's is the XRF that ive seen test Aussie florins weirdly before

acrellin · April 04, 2013, 08:09:38 PM

It sounds like there were some odd planchets lying around in the US Mints over there - the list of foreign coins they struck, even if only during that period, was not particularly short. Either way, they are still a very interesting and rare error.

Fulvio · April 28, 2013, 08:07:57 PM

Hmmm.. interesting approach to marketing....

If it doesn't sell at $1,500...

Put the price....

UP to $1,950!!!!!!

Riiiiiight... like THAT's going to work...

acrellin · April 29, 2013, 11:12:25 AM

Fulvio, This is indeed a case of BYOB - believing your own BS. I read an article dating to 1947 that discusses the background to these off-metal planchets, which I expect now means I'll be buried with it!

Fulvio · April 29, 2013, 01:07:23 PM

LOL! Yeah, been there, done that. Not just with coins either. My latest effort was an Android tablet that I really should have accepted a $200 for.. oh well..

Pencil me in as being interested in this coin if you ever come to your senses and drop down to three figures, ok?

acrellin · April 30, 2013, 01:38:43 PM

I appreciate the offer Fulvio - I'll recover from BYOB soon enough, but still believe the coin's worth more than three figures. I'm interested to see whether any other examples of the off-metal strikes from this period turn up - Owen Fleming's article from 1947 mentioned that he had a florin on an incorrect planchet, as well as another one of a different type. I don't recall seeing any other pre-decimal errors of this type, certainly none attributed to that collection. Who knows where they are?

Fulvio · April 30, 2013, 05:25:25 PM

You're probably right, but still..

As I see it there are only three prices.

1. Rush In and Grab it Now Before It Escapes!
2. Ponder, Procrastinate, Consider and Research.
3. Run Away Laughing.

Clearly, the original price was a 2. I'm currently in the 1 camp, as I can live without it. The new price... well... maybe a 2.5, y'think?

Oh, and then there are the jokers on eBay who keep coming up with 4's, but that's another story.

acrellin · April 30, 2013, 05:47:41 PM

Time will tell if it's a 2 or a 4.5, we shall wait and see!