United States: 1865 Three Cent Nickel (aka Thrime)

[Quant.Geek]

I am posting this in response to paisepagal's request (http://www.worldofcoins.eu/forum/index.php/topic,19165.msg129587.html#msg129587).  I bought this when I was a teenager (decades ago ), and since I had limited funds back then, I bought one that was cleaned.  It was far less costly than getting one that wasn't if you wanted one that had details.  So, when you zoom in, you can see the surface hairlines on the coin.  Digging through my older albums brings back fond memories...

I probably should replace this one with a more conservative piece...Hmmmmm, maybe an early Christmas gift for myself 


Ram 

[paisepagal]

Thanks Ram ! Although it's cleaned it has a great amount of detail. Attractive photo ! Now on to wikipedia to read more...

[Alan Glasser]

Hello, Quant.Geek.

What a great photo. I wish I could get my photos to be as nice and sharp!

I think as kids we have all done what happened to your 1865 3 cent piece. Baking soda, rubbed on to the surfaces to clean the coin was a culprit for me. I have done it more than once...believe me!!! I vaguely recall a liberal application of a Brillo pad as well when I was an early collector.

Anyway, the coin is very attractive save for the hairlines (scratches). One of the things I like to do from time to time is to look through "Cherrypickers Guide" in hunt for an interesting variety or mint error. Your excellent photo prompted me to whip out my copy of the book and see if it may be a "variety". While the little irregular blob at the end of the 5 on your coin is interesting, (it is supposed to be a round dot)...it is not listed as a variety. 

Good luck on your acquisiution of a nice, non-damaged 3 cent nickel. By the way, logically any 3 cent coin could be called a "trime" but for some reason I associate the term only with the 3 different types of 3 cent silver pieces (1851-1873), I may be wrong...and it certainly won't be the last time (or the first!!!)

Alan    MA

[Figleaf]

I understand the fussiness over the hairlines. However, this is a coin with clear and sharp details. It will do very well for any kind of research and it will satisfy the curiosity of your non-numismatic visitor, who will not even notice the hairlines.

What more do you want?

The culture of "harsh cleaning" dictates that this coin is lost forever etc. That is highly exaggerated, to say the least and completely and utterly irrelevant if you are not going to sell it. We accept wear, which does a lot more damage, with equanimity, but start shrieking over similar, but less intrusive damage because it was done by a collector? How rational is that? Why shouldn't we enjoy a coin like this for what it is: a beautiful specimen of an interesting type someone cleaned in the past.

Peter

[Alan Glasser]

Hello Quant.Geek. I hope you have feverishly returned to collecting!!!

I did a bit of research on the term "Trime" and apparently, it did apply slightly to the 3 cent silver pieces mentioned in an earlier post, but interestingly, not the 3 cent "nickel" pieces. The silver  3 cent coins were issued in large numbers to replace the then currently circulated Mexican Cuartillas (1/4 real=3 1/8 cents) and for reals and medio reales (equal roughly to 2 and 4 of the silver 3 cent pieces). Although the silver 3 cent pieces circulated heavily (thus most are very well worn) they became unpopular as they were discolored and filthy and were easily lost because for their small and thin size. They obtained the nickname of "fish scales". Then Mint Director Ross Snowden coined the term "trime" (pardon the pun) but the term was pretty much limited to coin collecting circles. The nickname did not carry over to the 3 cent nickel pieces. (Thanks to Walter Breen and "Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins".)

Alan "

[Buffalosoldat]

I understand the fussiness over the hairlines. However, this is a coin with clear and sharp details. It will do very well for any kind of research and it will satisfy the curiosity of your non-numismatic visitor, who will not even notice the hairlines.

What more do you want?

The culture of "harsh cleaning" dictates that this coin is lost forever etc. That is highly exaggerated, to say the least and completely and utterly irrelevant if you are not going to sell it. We accept wear, which does a lot more damage, with equanimity, but start shrieking over similar, but less intrusive damage because it was done by a collector? How rational is that? Why shouldn't we enjoy a coin like this for what it is: a beautiful specimen of an interesting type someone cleaned in the past.

Peter

I heartily agree. I'm even taking the view that less common coins that happen to have been holed in the distant past are not total write-offs. I'm in NZ, and when you think about people making a weeks-long ocean voyage, putting a hole in their coins to put them on a string would not be unreasonable. Yes, the hole sucks, but now it's part of the coin's story.

[Quant.Geek]

Hello Quant.Geek. I hope you have feverishly returned to collecting!!!

I have been going over of my US collection and it is definitely missing some pieces that I would love to fill.  So, I have now started my search for half-dimes, shield nickels, and large cents to add to my collection 

I did a bit of research on the term "Trime" and apparently, it did apply slightly to the 3 cent silver pieces mentioned in an earlier post, but interestingly, not the 3 cent "nickel" pieces. The silver  3 cent coins were issued in large numbers to replace the then currently circulated Mexican Cuartillas (1/4 real=3 1/8 cents) and for reals and medio reales (equal roughly to 2 and 4 of the silver 3 cent pieces). Although the silver 3 cent pieces circulated heavily (thus most are very well worn) they became unpopular as they were discolored and filthy and were easily lost because for their small and thin size. They obtained the nickname of "fish scales". Then Mint Director Ross Snowden coined the term "trime" (pardon the pun) but the term was pretty much limited to coin collecting circles. The nickname did not carry over to the 3 cent nickel pieces. (Thanks to Walter Breen and "Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins".)

Interesting as I always thought the coin was issued due to the increase in postage to 3 cents.  Thanks for pointing this out. 

Ram

[Alan Glasser]

Hello, QuantGeek.

So glad to hear that the "itch" is back! Best of luck filling those holes. It's a funny thing...when you get those holes filled...many new ones appear!!! That's been my problem for maybe 55 years!

Alan

[villa66]

I heartily agree. I'm even taking the view that less common coins that happen to have been holed in the distant past are not total write-offs. I'm in NZ, and when you think about people making a weeks-long ocean voyage, putting a hole in their coins to put them on a string would not be unreasonable. Yes, the hole sucks, but now it's part of the coin's story.

Is this idea of holing coins for an ocean voyage a hypothetical happening, or was this an actual practice? Piques my curiosity.

v.

[Buffalosoldat]

My understanding is this was indeed a common practice. If you can't strap it to you, it ain't yours. So I take holes with a grain of salt to a point. I knock 15 or 20 points off the grade depending on how neatly it was holed (or less if a hole was attempted), but I refuse to see it as necessarily worthless.