Talk:Nickel (United States coin)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nickel (United States coin) article.
Article policies
This article is part of the WikiProject Numismatics, which is an attempt to facilitate the categorization and creation of accurate and formal Numismatism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join and see a list of open tasks to help with.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Discussion of 1964 mintage figures?

1964 mintage figures (2.7 billion nickels) have never been surpassed. I'd guess this was in anticipation of a coin shortage the next year due to the changeover from silver to base metal for dimes and quarters. Can anybody substantiate this or provide an alternate explanation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentrockport (talk • contribs) 17:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of the pre-2004 revision nickel please?

I find it completely odd that we possibly have every single other picture of the nickel except for the one that is still in common circulation. I'm talking about the one with the Monticello design on the back, with Jefferson facing sideways. Can somebody remedy this? Cerealchan 03:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nickle/Nickel

"Nickle!"

American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd and 4th edition, says "Nickel" for both metal and coin. There is no entry for "Nickle."

The United States Mint, on their web site, spells the name of the coin "Nickel." -- Seth Ilys 02:45, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster says that both "nickel" and "nickle" are acceptable spellings, but lists "nickle" as a secondary variant that occurs less frequently than "nickel". --Bkell 02:48, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
In everyday usage, I see "nickel" far, far more often than "nickle." (When I do see "nickle," it's usually written by someone who has made a ton of other spelling errors.)

[edit] Removal from Article: annecdote

Moved from article:

One fellow, named Josh Tatum who was a deaf mute, passed hundreds of these all over the nation. He handed the coin to the store owner, and smiled and accepted the change for his 3 cent cigar or 2 cent piece of candy whether they handed him 2-3 cents or $4.97 cents. He'd tip his hat and go on. Josh got caught eventually, but his lawyer got him off since he had never said that it was a $5 gold piece. He didn't say anything at all you see... which was readily apparent to the jury. This is the origin of the word "joshing" meaning 'to fool'.

This sounded fishy (urban legend-esque), so I checked with OED on the etymology of the verb to josh. Sure enough, the OED gives Josh Billings (an "American humourist") as the Josh who became a verb, so to speak. The first citation given comes from 1845, almost forty years before the V nickel was introduced. The etymology part is certainly false, then, and I would like to see some reputable (non-folkloric) source citing Tatum by name to verify the rest. (The fact that gold-plated V nickels were passed as five-dollar coins is not in dispute.) —Tkinias 00:52, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You're right of course about the etymology. Apparently the Tatum story may or may not be apocryphal, but it probably needs some sort of mention in the article I think. Here are a couple of sources online: [1] (toward the bottom) and [2]. Anyway, he certainly doesn't need his name linked, because even if he did exist, this would be his only claim to fame. - Hephaestos|§ 22:40, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I've put back in a mention of Tatum but noted that the story is likely apocryphal. Will this work? —Tkinias 10:54, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sales related link

1913 Liberty Head Nickel Sells for $3M

Head's up on this liberty nickel sale. Maybe a bit more on the myth from coin people to drive wiki-traffic? :) jengod 22:14, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] True or false??

True or false: the answer to the following question is known:

"Will the Monticello back design return to the nickel in 2006??" 66.245.127.112 23:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the answer is known, and it's "No." I believe a new buffalo nickel design will come out for a couple years.
The answer is yes. Monticello is on the coin due to a law that was passed a number of years ago. The design may change, but rest assured Monticello will return. --Cholmes75 03:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Debasement/Metric System

I think the mention of the one cent/gram value of nickels is useful info, but I'm not sure what the author of that paragraph is trying to say with the sentence "They were designed as 5 grams in the metric units..."

Clarification, please?

Also, I don't think "debasement" is really the right word for what happened to the US nickel in 1942-45. Since it _had_ no precious metal content, and its precious metal content was actually _increased_, I think this is a really bad example of "debasement." Technically, the US five-cent piece was debased when the nickel itself was introduced in 1866, as the nickel succeeded the half-dime (which was silver) as the primary five-cent coin. Chris Lawson 05:20, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why was silver added to the nickel in those years? I thought for sure that was an error. -- Nik42 04:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nickel and copper were critical to the war effort, so every effort was made to allocate these raw materials to the war first, and to coinage second. Silver served little military purpose, as did zinc, which is why Treasury decided to use different compositions for the five- and one-cent pieces during World War II. (Incidentally, a significant number of 1944-dated cents were made from melted brass shell casings, as the steel cents were a disaster.)—chris.lawson (talk) 15:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Buffalo's, ahem, business

I have heard (from somewhat dubious sources) that complaints have been lodged over the visible buffalo phallus on the new buffalo nickel. Can anyone substantiate this? -- BD2412 talk 18:00, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • I've not heard of such complaints. --Cholmes75 03:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Section names

Since there is to be a new design beginning in '06, should the section names be modified? I'm thinking Jefferson Nickel (1938- ) should be changed to something like "Portrait Jefferson Nickel (1938-2003)" and the new design as "Forward Jefferson Nickel (2006- )", but perhaps someone else can come up with better terms to distinguish the two Nik42 09:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The 2006 nickel is supposed to be the nickel long-term, so the page (including the top right section with the pictures and minting dates) should be changed to reflect that. --68.100.250.35 19:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wanted: Backside of Jefferson Nickel

Please can someone provide an image of the backside of the Jefferson Nickel? Thank you. --Alexander.stohr 01:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Which one? Joe I 22:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Completely uninteresting anecdote

I ended up with an old buffalo nickel this week; it ended up in my pocket change somehow. NorphTehDwarf 07:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] five-hundredths

This term is a bit confusing, it could be interpreted as 1/500. I have changed to five onehundreths.

[edit] 1926-S

I have a buffalo nickel from 1926, but I am having trouble finding information on what makes in a 1926-S as opposed to a 1926. I see no mintmarkings or anything either. Any information that might describe this would be valuable here in the discussion and also on the article page. Thanks for the help. Djramey 13:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Refer to the Indian Head nickel article. I have updated the contents of it with mintmark information. Specifically, the 'S' is the mintmark from the San Francisco Mint. Interesting, the nickel I used to scan was also a 1926-S. --Kurt 22:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Picture of the Full Jefferson Profile

I was interested in the Westward Journey nickel series. I found all the coins but was struck by a 2006 coin with a new full profile of Jefferson, and the conteporary image of monticello.

I found your entry for it but only after mistaking this coin for westword series. Novices like myself need a picture. I would suggest you putting the Forward-Facing Jefferson (2006- ) picture in that description. You do have the picture futher up to the right, but I found the referance confusing.

[edit] Coin name (nickel vs. five-cent)

I'm sure that the name nickel is the coin's common name in the United States, which is the country the currency officially belongs to. However, someone edited Template:US currency and coinage saying that "five cent" is a more common name. Anyone able to explain who uses which name?? Georgia guy 00:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been all over the U.S. in 40 years, and "nickel" is by far a more common term than 5-cent-piece West of the Rockies, anyway. Anybody from the East Coast or from a more bygone era, want to comment? Generally, common usage favors shorter words. Quarter and dime win out over 2-bit-piece and 10-cent-piece also. But for some reason, I've always heard penny (as the term for the COIN) more than "cent" in the US. Cent (as term for the coin) seems to the favored word of collectors. Though prices are generally given in cents, NEVER in pennies. SBHarris 00:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
"Nickel" is definitely much more common, and if someone edited the template to reflect otherwise, I would expect to see a source cited for that.--chris.lawson 01:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I added the numerical value in brackets; hope this compromise is OK. –EdC 01:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, if "nickel" is on official website, and numeric value is also given, then I give. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to throw in my two cents (heh, heh), I'm east of the Rockies, and "nickel" wins hands down. Penny, nickel, dime, quarter . . . these are the only names I ever hear anyone use. The only U.S. coin that seems to genuinely have two common names is the half-dollar / 50-cent piece. (I use the latter name, but I hear the former, too.) Funnyhat 07:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wartime Nickel composition

The Presidential Dollar coins are struck from the same blanks as the Sac's, so that should probably be changed to read that magnese wasn't used again until the currnet dollar coins entered production. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.2.113.102 (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] dc?

On February 2, User:Amovrvs appended "dc" to several dates in the section about metal value. What, if anything, does this mean? —Tamfang (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] magnetism

nickel is magnetic. nickels are not. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.112.23 (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Because they are 75% copper and only 25% nickel. In reality, they are slightly magnetic, just not enough to notice. Bobby I'm Here, Are You There? 15:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Metal value

Is it just me, or do the calculations in this section not make sense: "The price of pre-1982 US cents which weigh 3.1 grams are USD$0.02576016 which is 157.6% above face value metal content at market, and the post-1982 US cent which weigh 2.5 grams are USD$0.0683893 in metal content which is 68.4% metal content over face value." Anyone?

24.91.110.252 (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur, that doesn’t sound right to me either.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] coinage revaluation and the US Constitution

The 2008 nickel and penny controversy has led to Congress proposing to replace these coins with a steel version to reduce minting costs. The US Constitution gives Congress the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof. It does not give Congress the power to "debase" the coinage by using inferior metals.

A reading of the Constitution and a study of history should lead one to conclude that Congress only has the power to revalue current coinage, not debase it to a lower grade of metal. For example, it would be within the power of Congress to raise the Nickels value to 20 cents and the penny to 5 cents.

Congress first overstepped it authority in 1965 when it began debasing silver coinage instead of just revaluing it to correct for inflation of the price of Silver. Apparently, this escaped the attention of the US Supreme Court because they have never approved this debasement of US coinage. Even during the horrific inflation of the US Civil War, Congress never dreamed of debasing the coinage. Instead they issued US Notes which were later redeemed after the war was over.

Congress has passed a law making it a crime to melt down US coinage or export them for melting. However this did not work with the silver coinage and it is sure to fail with nickels and pennies.

If Congress would simply follow the Constitution and revalue all coinage to market value, the problem would resolve itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.223.67.254 (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)