1957 Jefferson Nickel: Artificial or Natural Toning?

Is the toning on the 1957 Jefferson Nickel shown below natural, artificial, or something in between? Please vote in the attached poll to express your opinion using one of the following 5 categories.

1) Natural Toning (NT): The toning is 100% original and the coin would definitely grade problem free by NGC or PCGS.

2) Market Acceptable Toning (MA): While not definitively natural, the toning is still market acceptable and most likely would grade problem free by NGC or PCGS.

3) Questionable Toning (QT): While not definitively artificial, the toning is not market acceptable and most likely would be graded as a problem coin for questionable toning by NGC or PCGS.

4) Artificial Toning (AT): The toning is 100% artificial and the coin would definitely grade as a problem coin for artificial toning by NGC or PCGS.

5) Show results (IDK): If you don't know which category to assign this coin, or are unsure of your grading skills with relation to the originality of toning, please select this option.





As always, comments welcome.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I know nothing about Nickels but it appears to me to be NT. I've just got the feeling I've seen Jefferson nickels before that looked like this one.
This is just a guess. Thanks for putting this up.

 

The reverse looks great. The horizontal bands on the obverse call the toning into question.

But these are the thoughts of a very ingorant newbie . . . . .

Z

 

It seems natural. I put down that it was market acceptable. I really can't put my finger on proof of how natural it was or wasn't. If I were forced to point out something troubling, it would be the color on the reverse, with the faint pastel greenish gold being surrounded by faint pastel blue. Maybe the red bit in the hair, also.

 

Dang it, I have a disability in this. I was diagnosed as being somewhat color blind in my youth. I cannot see the red . . . . . .

 

It's not strong, just a pale red swath through the hair if you follow the forehead hairline through the side of the head. Evaluating toned coins with color blindness has to be tough. I put the image in a color blindness simulator and if I use red-weak or red-blind, it shows up as patch slightly darker than its surroundings.

 

It looks like natural toning to me. It's a very attractive Nickel.

 

Based on what I see that gets straight graded at PCGS and NGC (particularly among nickels), this one looks market acceptable.

 

It looks "natural" to me. Similar to this set of mine:



I said "natural" as opposed to natural because while it wasn't intentionally toned, the toning is caused by the holder, which could be seen as "artificial" or unnatural.

 

The thing about holder induced toning is that it tends to follow the edge of the coin, be circular in nature.

That nickel has strictly horizontal toning on the obverse. That's what made me think artificial.

Z

 

Looks natural to me. I don’t see any wild colors, or non-progressive toning. It would straight grade without question IMHO. I think it looks like light album toning, and see nothing out of the ordinary. Looks like a premium 67 to me.

 

I said market acceptable. I don’t see any major red flags and it’s not spectacular. But I don’t see any obvious natural signs like progression from an album or holder. I’m sit as familiar with nickel toning as I am silver tho

 

NT

 

The vast majority of the respondents to this thread and poll think this coin is either NT or MA. Now what if I told you this coin came from an album and these were the coins on either side of this coin?





Would anyone want to change their mind?

 

Album toning, "Natural" from storage, i'm ok with these. I don't think any of them are artificially toned, at least in the sense of "purposely toned".

 

​

 

The 56-D & 57-D are not market acceptable and would definitely grade QT by PCGS and NGC. The 1957 has a shot a grading but considering the number of AT coins that I have found in this album, I am leaning towards QT for that one as well.

The purpose of this thread in part was to illustrate that the TPGs don't have access to storage conditions and that their evaluation is solely based on the coin in front of them. My view of this coin is biased by the information that I have about the other coins in the collection, information that they could never have.

 

This was my vote. Did I win?



I would still want to own something like those . . . .

Z

 

I agree that the 56-D should be QT. The 57-D I could see grading. With nickels and some other moderns I've seen quite a few questionable examples pass at PCGS (and occasionally at NGC).

 

@Lehigh96 with the 57-D, is it the obverse, reverse, or combo of both that makes you think QC?

And what do you think about these (different dates but also UNC Jeffersons)?
https://www.pcgs.com/cert/82982518

https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/441131/1960-Jefferson-Nickel-PCGS-MS-64-Toned

https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/873135/1964-Jefferson-Nickel-PCGS-MS-65-Toned

https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/704220/1964-Jefferson-Nickel-PCGS-MS-64-QA-Toned

https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/441125/1964-D-Jefferson-Nickel-PCGS-MS-64-Toned