Which 1959 Jefferson Nickel do you prefer?

My eyes are drawn back to #1 every time I look at both of them together. The luster is mesmerizing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Tough one. I really like both.

I like the surfaces and luster of number 1 more.

The strike and proof like wins me over on number 2. When comparing the two this is the coin I would pick for my collection. Comparing the two Monticello makes number 2 an easy pick.

For grades:
1 = 67
2 = 66*FS ( I could see it being a reverse PL with the obverse missing it and therefore earning a star).

 

Ebay has made it clear which coin Lehigh likes more!

 

Lol, that's cheating.

So anyone who has ever seen my registry collection knows two things. I love eye appeal first and foremost, and second, I am not a slave to the full step designation or the additional registry points it often affords.

As most of you have surmised, the semi prooflike full stepper was my existing registry coin and was worth a whopping 1558 registry points. The problem is that almost every other coin in my collection has brilliant luster and it always made this coin seem out of place. Additionally, the nature of the prooflike surfaces accentuates every little mark on the coin making it appear overgraded at first glance.



There is really nothing wrong with the coin other than it just doesn't fit well into my collection. I purchased the new 1959 with the intention of flipping it on eBay since it is only worth 442 registry points, but once I saw this absolutely blazing coin in hand, I knew the MS66 5FS was going up on the block.




Strike designations are somewhat of a curse IMO. Not only because they make collectors slaves to a very small area of the coin, but because they do it at the expense of the rest of the coin. The TPGs would have you believe that Full Steps on a Jefferson Nickel is the leading indicator of the quality of strike and nothing could be further from the truth. Take these two coins for example. The full step designation programs us to instantly look at the reverse, compare the step detail, and then compare the details of Monticello. And that would be fine if there wasn't another side to the coin. If I asked most people, they would say that the prooflike coin is the better struck coin. But If we look closely, the obverse of the MS67 is clearly better struck than the MS66 5FS. And I would say that the degree to which the MS67 has a better stuck obverse than the MS66 5FS exceeds the degree to which the MS66 5FS has a better struck reverse.

In the end, it is coins like these that shine a light on how different collectors have different preferences within the coin grading spectrum. Those who prefer blazing luster and eye appeal will usually choose the MS67, whereas those who covet strike and full details will usually choose the MS66 5FS.

 

Nah, bruh. I have an Ebay watchlist set up with any permutation of prooflike I can think of, and it alerts me to any new sales using these key words.

Not my fault you listed it for sale on Ebay before your reveal

 

No biggie, I had already voted in the poll for the MS67, I don't think it would surpise anyone that I would choose coin #1.

 

@Lehigh96 is 1959 known to be a date more commonly encountered with semi-pl or is it just a coincidence that someone else also has one on eBay?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/114270056638

 

I really don't know, the only other semi-prooflike Jefferson Nickels I have ever seen are moderns from the 80's & 90's. Jason, @physics-fan3.14 probably knows which dates are more common in PL.

 

I've also seen the modern 80s-90s in PL but don't recall many earlier dates (I believe there are some PL war nickels too).

 

Who? Me? Prooflikes? What?

The other seller you link, @ddddd d , is a well-known dealer in prooflike coins and a friend of mine. It is his specialty, and he often has a lot of cool stuff. He used to be active on the NGC forums, and we talk about our finds.

Here's the brief overview of 20th century Prooflikes (by this, I mean series after Barber/Morgan - those are different). 20th century prooflikes can be broken up into three main eras.

First, there are the S mint coins of the 30s, 40s, and 50s. Usually, these display strong die polish, which helped to give them the mirrored finish. Prooflike War nickels fall into a subset of this category, usually collected as a separate type. Outside of the war nickels, there are some pre-war PLs (39S, 40S), and plenty post-war. There isn't really anything special or distinctive about PL war nickels compared to a PL 46S except for the composition. Below, I've shown a 42S War Nickel in 66PL (by far the most common date) and a 46S in 66PL.

The next era comes from the late 50s to early 70s. Usually, these display silky smooth surfaces. While there is a 59 designated as PL, PLs of this era are hard to get - more often, they are quite attractive semi-PLs like the coin @Lehigh96 shows in this thread. PLs from this era are actually more often from the Denver mint, across all series. Shown below is my 64D in 65PL.

Once we get into the mid-80s, we start to see the modern era of Prooflikes. In the late 80's, early 90's, the mint began experimenting with new die technology - they began chrome plating the dies to make them last longer. If you think of how shiny a chrome bumper is, then you realize how shiny the die could be - and how shiny the coin struck might be. The earliest example I know is my 84D in 65 5FS PL shown below. These start to get common in the late 80's, into the 90s. The peak is something like my 1998D in 65 6FS DPL shown below.

A word of advice - don't pay outlandish prices for PL examples from the 2000s. Especially within the last decade, PL examples are extremely common, even in very high grades.

 

I like #2

 

#2, mainly for the full steps

 

Did you vote in the poll?

 

Both are nice but I went with #1 because of the luster.

 

I went with number 2 (not my daily constitutional) because of the full steps. I like the obverse of #1 better and my guess it would grade MS66 while #2 MS65. Also, I think the details of Monticello is better with #2. If I could meld the obverse of #1 with the reverse of #2 then I'd go with that.

 

I actually like both, voted for #2 because of better steps, and generally agree with those who graded. Thanks to @physics-fan3.14 for the exposition about proof-likes...Spark

 

It's obvious I didn't read all the comments before giving my opinion. If I did I wouldn't have given a grade to the two coins. But since my grades were each a point lower than the TPGs I have a comment to add. I tend to agree with the 67 grade on #1 but not 66 on #2. The reverse of #2 has too many detracting marks IMO for a 66.

 

#2 due to its superior strike.

 

I agree with you, and that’s one of the reasons why #2 has been replaced by #1.

Let’s put it this way, coin #2 would never earn a CAC sticker as an MS66, it is a “C” coin without a doubt.

 

I can't explain why but it seems to me the Five Full Steps would be harder to find and more satisfying once found as a true treasure. I guess I'd always be suspicious of the luster on #1, and it just seems the luster would be fleeting whereas the five full steps are more concrete(?)(no pun intended) #2 gets my vote at MS66+