Jefferson Nickel 1964-D NGC MS67 (2 of 7)

I just received my latest Jefferson Nickel in the mail. It is a rainbow toned 1964-D Jefferson Nickel NGC MS67. The total population of this coin is 7/0 and I already own one. I need to decide which of these coins to put in my registry set. The new coin while freakishly unique concerns me a little. Here are the photos of the two coins for a comparison.




The toning on the new acquisition is certainly more dramatic than that of the original specimen. However, I have serious concern about the originality of the toning, it is iridescent and decidedly dark at many angles, and the black peripheral toning is very distracting. The toning on my first 64-D is much more natural looking and not nearly as dark. In the end I still have to give the nod to the new coin, just barely.

The surfaces of the new coin are much better than that of the original coin. The strike of the original coin is much better thatn the new coin. Luster is essentially even and the eye appeal goes to the new coin, assuming the toning is natural of course.

I would like to know what the CT members think and have attached a poll for you to cast your vote!

PS. Here is the sellers photo!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I remember seeing this coin...somewhere... I won't say.

But anyhow, those original photos were really juiced! When I did see this before, I was wondering what it actually looked like.

Anyway, that black on the rim-area concerns me, and because of that, I think I like the old one better.

 

I believe I showed you that coin, Paul. Very juiced indeed/
Seeing the old and new coins though, my vote is with the old one

 

I would suggest that the new coin was AT'd in the slab. I really don't think anyone would slab that if you cracked it out. The black around the rim completley kills the eye appeal, and that's what you're all about, so I suggest you leave it out of the set.

 

The seller posted a link to his E-Bay auction in the Open forum and is a member of Cointalk. I don't care about the seller's photos as I had a pretty good idea of what the coin would look like in hand. In other words, I knew the coin would not look like the photos.

An interesting side note, Numismedia price guide lists the 1964-D NGC Jefferson Nickel at $650 in large part due to the Omaha Bank Hoard example that sold for $776 in 2006 (see auction link below).

http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=26084&Lot_No=13353

While the Heritage photos are rather small, it would appear the both of my coins are better in quality than that coin and I paid $650 combined for both of mine. IMO, the real market value of these coins is much closer to $300 than $650.

 

playing around in Photoshop I tried to make your pics look like the sellers. Not sure how he did that.

Are your photos accurate? I see the originals were taken at an angle.

Also, on your old one, are the nicks/dings on the slab or on the coin (of the reverse)?

 

Yeah I'd have to go with the old one as well. Personally I think that the new one falls short in comparison simply for the reasons already mentioned. I'm sure it looks better in hand and is most likely a very nice nickel, just not the right fit for your registry. :thumb:

 

My photos are very accurate. The seller would have you believe that the coin blasts you with green when in fact the coin appears brown at most angles. The green is iridescent and only appears strong at a small angle range. The other colors however are much more prominent. I took my photos with a casino chip under the bottom of the slab to create a small angle. My guess is that the seller used a more severe angle.

The nicks/dings on the old coin are on the coin which is why I wanted to upgrade. I really think the old coin is a high end MS66. I have no problem with the surfaces of the new coin other than the originality of the color and the distracting black.

 

As far as the points awarded, to NGC all MS-67's are the same.
If you want to include an image, IMO go with the blue one.

 

Beyond the black stuff, I do not like the brownish toning spots on the obverse that are seen in the fields. They are also distracting. To me, there is no real decision to mull over - keep the old one.

 

The old coin is much nicer, in my opinion. First off, the black toning on the reverse is, like you said, distracting. But the iridescent colors really turn me off that coin. The older coin has a much smoother coloring that doesn't scream fishing lure.
Guy~

 

You say "The strike of the original coin is much better thatn the new coin."
At least PCGS requires a full strike for a 67, and I would think NGC would be somewhat similar. I would think that a full strike for a 67 Jefferson would at least be full pillars on Monticello's porch. Your new one does not have them. With that and the black stuff, I would not even think your new one should make a 67.

 

If the coin really looks like the picture you took, which I believe you they are, The seller really juiced this one up a lot. I like the old one better.

 

ok, that's what I figured.

And I asked about grading 67 with some dings, because I have a raw toned 1964-D - nice strike and all, but it has a few dings/scratches on the reverse. A bit more severe than those though, so it would probably grade 65 - maybe 66...

 

While I will agree that PCGS is more conservative in their grading of Jefferson Nickels than NGC, I would not go so far as to say that they require a full strike for the MS67 grade. They might say they do in their book, PCGS's THE OFFICIAL GUIDE TO COIN GRADING AN COUNTERFEIT DETECTION, but I have seen too many coins in PCGS MS67 holders to know that is not true. Take a look at this 1949-D that sold for almost $7K in a Heritage auction in 2008.

http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=1110&Lot_No=564

The 1964-D Jefferson had a total mintage of almost 1.8 billion nickels. To date, only 7 coins have been graded MS67 by both NGC and PCGS. That should give you an indication of the quality that was produced by the Denver mint that year. While a poor strike might very well preclude an MS67 grade on a Jefferson Nickel minted between 1938-1945, it is very unlikely that strike will play much of a role in the grading process on a 1964-D. I am not saying that I agree with this philosophy, rather it is what I have seen in the market place.

 

I have 3 answers to that;
1) Because you can find some weak strike 67's does not mean that they should have been graded 67.
2) Not that it matters using your definitions, but your reverse is even weaker than that of the 49-D.
3) You asked what MY opinion was.

 

I much prefer the second coin.

The first coin's toning is, how shall I say it, quite odd for a mint set toner (which is presumably what it is, or is pretending to be ). Furthermore, the black areas on the reverse are quite distrating.

That said, the second coin is not without fault -- there are a few spots that I'm not sure that I like on a 67 coin (although admittedly I've purchased a certain buffalo nickel proof with a few flyspecks too).

However, if given the choice between the two, I'd take the coin behind door #2 (your old coin).

Thanks for sharing...Mike

 

1) There isn't anyway that a professional grader can mistake that strike for a full strike. The MS67 grade was not a mistake, the strike was intentionally ignored.
2) If you think my 1964-D is weaker struck than that 1949-D, you need to examine the coins again.
3) When you make a statement like "At least PCGS requires a full strike for a 67" and present it as fact, I feel obligated to let the other members of this forum know that is not true. I value your opinion and was not upset by it. I merely disagree that PCGS requires a full strike for the MS67 grade regardless of what their published standards are.

​

 

I do not have as much experience grading Jeffersons as you, but here is their definition for MS-67 quoted from the PCGS glossery;

I well realize that their words do not always match their actions

 

help

I'm new what's on my nickel