Guess the Grade-----1974 Jefferson Nickel PCGS

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Rather than stick my head in the sand, I'd much rather stick my head in a bag of nickels, because those marks on the previous to Jefferson seen are not created by a shovel at the mint.

The most likely scenario for 1974 are marks created after pressing, when the coins are dumped by gravity to collection hoppers, then dumped again into counting machines where once again gravity fills the mint bags for distribution to the Federal Reserve.

Note: Any coins remaining in the hopper were simply pulled out by a T-Bar (like a rake)

Bags of nickels (4,000) each were loaded on to steel wheel carts or pallets so a fork lift can move them...all this jostling with rides in a semi-trailer trucks, off loading, re-stacking and not one shovel used.

These coins are just "baggy" coin in contact with another coin, which is acceptable to a certain point before the grade diminishes with the number or depth of contact.

Bring out the BBQ sauce, because if what we are seeing here was created by a shovel, I will eat my shirt.

 

I voted ms 62 fs, The three marks on Jeffersons Jaw were distracting, the smaller ones and the ones in the hair ticked it down a bit.

If I were to grade just looking at the reverse I might say a 65, real nice reverse, I am posting this before I start reading the second page of posts.

 

After further review,

No, I would not buy that for my collection. As for how those marks are made I tend to think they are marks made by other coins, It is counterintuitive to realize how fragile and soft metal actually is, it is only when we compare it to ourselves that it seems hard. you can polish coins with a plastic bag, which seems soft to us.

Also it is hard to guess the grade a tpg gave a coin, sometimes I think that big valued customers submissions get a bump that other coins do not get, the lowest number given on the poll was a 62, I might have said ms-60 if it was available as part of the poll, it does not look like it was circulated and damage to me means more than contact marks.

I admit I do not have the skinny on how hard the coins are ejected from the machine, if a coin can get stuck in a place and have other coins strike it as they are ejected, I am relying more on other industrial methods I have seen that may be totally different than how the mint handled coins back in the 70s, tho I have heard many collector complaints about modern handling and also how modern coinage is handled so much better than used to be the case.

 

How about just explaining how it makes a cut that sharp. The only "sharp" point is on the coin is the edge. If the cut were from the edge, it would be both curved (it would have to hit at an angle) and wider ("V" shaped since it is a 90° angle). In order to make a cut like that, there has to be a shape like that on the nickel. It just does not exist.

 

I respectfully with draw from this conversation....you guys are right, those are not bag marks from other nickels, even though three of the marks line up on cheek like a stack of offset nickels, guess I've been wrong about all this since 1965.

 

Earlier in this thread you came right out and said that those marks were not caused by another nickel. Your words, not mine.

I don't dispute that coins were shoveled or that the process damaged coins. However, it is not a fact that the worst marks on those coins couldn't have been made by another coin. You are assuming that every coin that falls into the hopper goes in individually at an acceleration caused by gravity. There are countless variables that you are ignoring. You came up with your own theory (scoop shovels). What would happen to a coin when a guy with a scoop shovel throws a shovel full of coins into the bag that already had some coins in it. Wouldn't the resulting marks be more severe than those caused by a single falling coin into the hopper?

It is not a fact that the marks could not have been made by another coin. You are making an assumption without proper evidence in order to bolster your own opinion. I call that saving face, not the truth.

This has nothing to do with kool-aid. That is purely a spin tactic that you are using to bolster your lone supported opinion. The TPG's and just about everybody else accepts the fact that the marks are created by other coins. You have convinced yourself that what is generally accepted is impossible. That is the same thing that a conspiracy theorist does.

Regarding the grade of the coin. That answer should be simple. I asked last week if a significant mark in the focal area of a coin should prohibit a gem grade. Almost everybody agreed that it should. However, that is not what the TPG's think. I posted this coin as an example and our membership stayed consistent with their original opinions and only a few gave the coin the MS65 grade.

The TPG grade is not wrong per say, but they obviously use a different standard of grading than the Cointalk members. I believe I have established that as a fact at this point. But there you go saying they are wrong once so that means they are wrong again.

What you won't do and haven't done during this entire conversation is discuss the 1968-S nickel. The marks on that coin are equal in severity to the mark on the 1974. Are all of those marks spread out over the coin in multiple directions shovel marks as well? The reason for your silence is easy to explain. You know that they are not all caused by a shovel but to admit that would hurt your argument so you simply ignore it.

I will extend an olive branch in this divide. The largest mark on the 1974 could have been caused by a shovel mark. However, since the severity of the mark is similar to that caused by a coin and the TPG has no way to prove that the mark is a shovel mark, they consider it a typical bag mark. I see nothing wrong with that practice. I believe Mike pointed out that bag marks (made by coins) and shovel marks are both caused by the mint manufacturing process and are not post mint damage. Because the marks are a result of normal production, severity should be the determining factor in the grading process.

Now that is just a joke. First, the facts do not support your position. Second, I am not the one who has a reputation on the coin forums for being inflexible and unrelenting.

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=725379&STARTPAGE=6

However, I am willing to admit that I am wrong as long as it is a third party that gets to decide. It is obvious that neither of us is going to change our minds on this issue. Why don't we have a CT member post a poll on either the CU or CS forum and let them decide?

 

WOW.....that is a great thread....glad to find out that I am not the only one.

 

To be clear and not to get in the middle, both Doug and Paul seem to be drawing conclusions from the poll, in part by using my MS65FS vote (as well as Green18's) as an anomaly to support their arguments that most people would not grade the coin MS65.

However, I made clear I was voting what I thought PCGS graded the coin. Would I give it a 65 if I started the JGS (Jeff's Grading Service)? Of course not. It would probably be a 62 or 63. Most people apparently voted what they would grade it themselves. But that was not the question in Paul's poll. If anyone doesn't believe me, check the first post. It states, "Guess the assigned grade of this 1974 Jefferson Nickel graded by PCGS."

If you want to draw conclusions from the poll, it is either (A) most people ignored Paul's actual question or (B) most people were unable to accurately guess what PCGS's assigned grade was.:smile

By the way, the two of you need to stay friendly as your debates are providing good info to the rest of us. :hammer::hammer:

 

Is there any possibility that these defects could have been on the planchet before striking? Similar to how the shoulder area of cents can look.

 

No matter how many times I ask the question "guess the assigned grade", most people give their opinion of grade not that which the TPG would assign. I think it is hard for most collectors to realize that the TPG's use different standards than they do when they grade. We fall into the trap that we think everyone grades coins just like we do, in essence ignoring the subjective aspect of grading.

I have no ill will towards Doug but we are both stubborn as mules. I don't see either of us changing our minds on the issue. However, I will renew my offer to admit that I was wrong if a third party consensus proves me to be so.

Schatzy, you are a member of the NGC forum. Why don't you post a poll asking what they think caused the damage. We would need to work out the verbiage here first so that both Doug and I agree before posting it on the NGC forum.

 

Done!!

 

I find it highly interesting that this discussion is taking place right now. I have actually been working on a thread along these lines for the past couple of weeks - with very interesting first hand experimental results. I will attempt to finish the thread either tonight or tomorrow, and will post a link here when I complete it.

 

For further discussion about this subject, including interesting first-hand experiments, please see my new article posted here: What You Need to Know About: Contact Marks

Suffice it to say that I believe this thread will clearly show Doug to be wrong.

 

I wish you could have made one of those super slomo films of it making that slice. The straight part I understand. It is the narrow slice effect I still don't get. Anyway, you have convinced me.

 

I have to say that I'm with LeHigh on this one Doug.

The nickel has 3 marks in a row and I've seen many of those marks on nickels. If you look at the position of the marks they are pretty uniform too. How can a shovel hit that same nickel 3 times in almost the same pattern and angle if it's "scooping" up the nickels?
Rake possible I guess depending on the rake but I'm more thinking it's other nickel marks as much as I've seen these on them. Not from on nickel falling on another but from pounds of them and pound in bags stacked up and weighing each other down. Imagine a bunch of these bags being dropped on each other the weight would be lots and that uniform look on that one is possibly a stack of another row of nickels lying on them at a slight angle.

 

There has been alot of interesting "coin journey" info provided in this thread.

The marks , regardless of what caused them , are distracting.

Trying to figure out what a TPG would grade the coin can be really hard for a beginner like me because when I look at the examples provided on Photograde or my ANA grading book , I see a coin in a lesser grade that has more detail and eye appeal than a higher graded coin right next to it.

 

Agreed and I think that lowers the grade of the coin with those marks. But I don't think that is makes it ungradeable and neither did PCGS.