Well, you were the closest. I think you guys got fooled by the size of the photos. I don't think I am going to use such large photos in my future gtg threads.
I guessed 66 5FS. The steps do appear to just miss FS but I think that’s because the photos are so good and can be enlarged many times the actual size of a nickel. I think in person, without magnification, NGC gave it 5FS. Edited to add: I made my guess before seeing the reveal. Also, the full slab photo does make the coin look better than the cropped versions. Every minute mark is magnified in the cropped photos.
That was my thinking as well; without that one mark, 67 makes sense but with it, I'm not as convinced.
It depends, some are planchet flaws, some are marks. For example, on the cheek and jaw are planchet roughness, behind the mouth is a mark. I am in agreement, as can be seen from my vote in the poll. If I were the grader, this would be my grade. The unwritten rules of the TPG are that you can have "one" area of weakness as long as it isn't under the 3rd pillar, that the 5th step is complete, and that the overall step detail is strong. This coin has great overall step detail, a complete 5th step, but the area of weakness which is a bridge of the 4th and 5th step falls under the 3rd pillar. My problem is that the steps on this coin look better than almost every other 68-S FS in existence. When it is this close, I am an optimistic grader and lean towards giving the strike designation. Whoever graded this did not agree. I agree, this coin would look better with a 66 numerical grade.
Subjective reasoning on the part of the third party grader doesn't always make you wrong.......buy the coin and not the holder, and do follow your heart.