Which 1956-D Jefferson Nickel do you prefer?

I don't know the toning patterns with non-war nickels well enough to make an informed statement about the toning. It doesn't look obviously AT to me...but beyond that I don't have the background in this series. You're my go to for that...so if you say something feels wrong about it I would take you at your word.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Paul, I think you’re overthinking this. I think coin 1 is a beautifully struck coin, but seems more like a 66+ to me. Coin #2 is gorgeous—I don’t see the toning as artificial at all. It looks like beautiful Dansco toning to me. I am nowhere as experienced at Jeffersons as are you, but I have a fair share of toned Jeffs. Coin #2 is just gorgeous, and as you said, it is unique with the star. I would keep it if I were you.

 

I'm not a nickel toning expert so I defer to your expertise there. Having said that, I prefer coin # 2.

Given that both bother you, sell them both, bank the proceeds, and look for a '56-D that fills the bill for you. 1956-D is a tougher date/mm for nicely toned silver, but even at that you can certainly find nice stuff in a year or three. I'm guessing nickel is the same.

Assuming you want to keep one until you find the "right" '56-D for you, then keep the one that bothers you least.

 

For me, I don't see a problem with the toning on coin 2. It looks like album toning, and I like it.

For me, coin 1 is blatantly overgraded by 2 points. I personally would have a *really* hard time keeping this coin in my set, even if the number on the slab is amazing. It just doesn't deserve it.

For me, it's a very easy choice and I'd have no problem at all keeping coin 2 and selling 1.

 

I wish I had your dilemma Paul. If all three make you queasy, keep the one that gives you the most points in your registry set, sell the other 2 and look for a replacement to upgrade in your set.

 

I would keep number 2 for the time being.
The toning may be explained as album toning, and if it is, it is just a little too dark and funky for my taste also. It is still a great coin.
#1 has to go. I saw a 66 at best, didn't think that they would more or less overlook the curved mark on the shoulder. It alone should keep this from a 67. IMO

 

You guys have convinced me, I’m keeping #2. The first coin is overgraded and coin #2 simply fits better in my registry set which is based on toning & eye appeal.

 

I like coin #2 a lot, doesn’t set off any “AT” alarms for me.

I’m curious, when you said you’d possibly “dip” the blue/purple raw coin you have - what is a safe dip for nickel? When I think “dip,” I think of silver - where a very thin layer of metal is removed. Silver dip is not safe for nickel or copper, so I am curious what would normally be used to safely remove toning from a lustrous Nickel surface.

 

Well, it’s basically worthless as an AT raw coin, I was thinking about using silver dip and hoping for the best. @ddddd thinks it might straight grade, but I’m not sure I want that thing in my collection.

 

Silver dip on Nickel is risky business. It will sometimes look great for a few days then start to turn and eventually nosedive into oblivion of ugly.

I don’t mind the blue/purple - but you’re likely right I don’t think NGC would straight grade - PCGS may possibly?

 

If it did straight grade, I would guess that it would sell for more than if it was blast white. Even raw, you might get $10-$20 for it. Considering the chances for straight grading probably aren't high and the current value (raw) isn't high, it might be worth experimenting on (I personally would not-but I also have never tried with something like this).

 

My suggestion was to include it in a PCGS order with some other coins. I'm almost certain NGC would call it AT.

 

Yes, I’m sending it to PCGS with my next submission.