Which one and why? 1964 Jefferson Nickel

lol Me too please!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Luster?????

 

I'm not a fan of that type of toning it's not bad it's just not that good either. When it gets dark and cracks usually turns me off a bit.

 

It is a big part in determining when a star can be given out.
Guess what buddy, coins that are completely blast white no toning at all can get a star. Would you like to know why?
Either amazing details, but one thing holding it back from getting to the next grade, this can include certain things such as near FBL on a Franklin, near FB on a Mercury, and etc, etc. It can also get a star due to amazing luster, coins in the market place that are graded MS64 might have the luster of a 66, and they are given a star due to exceptional eye appeal.

 

if that roosevelt had luster id be extremely :computer::computer::computer::computer:

 

Another helpful post from Doug.

Is there a coin he has ever liked?? Does he have a collection with his ultra-high standards precluding 66's and 67's?

Can I request that Doug add me to his 'Ignore List', since I can't add him to mine, since he is a mod?

 

Ah I see a joke at the spelling of what I called luster, if I'm not mistaken.
Dimefreak, luster, I've seen spelled two different ways.

Lustre and Luster.

Look through threads on this forum, people spell it L-U-S-T-E-R.

Here is a thread example, count how many times LUSTER is used.

http://www.cointalk.com/t113954/

If you look up luster in the dictionary you'll find exactly what you need as well.

So tell me, why should your coin get a star again?

 

No its a proof........You would never catch me making fun of somebodys spelling.....Also you said that coins can get a star for being short of the next grade. I gathered from NGC that a Proof 69 UC cannot have excessive toning because they are to scared to say there are not hairlines under the toning..........this coin has been under the steroscope over 100 times. yet to find a hairline

 

Ah, makes more sense. People have gotten on me for the spelling of luster before, even though it is used as luster. I believe lustre is a British spelling.

You still haven't explained what constitutes your particular coin as a coin worth having a star.
We will take luster out of it.
Also, now you are comparing not only two different series of coins, but you are comparing two different types of strikes and two different types of toning.
The Jefferson Nickel in this thread and your dime can't be compared.
If I was a grader at NGC, your coin would be just another coin that didn't wow me over, and doesn't have exceptional eye appeal. I have toned coins as well, just because they are toned, or are the nicer toners in my collection, doesn't mean NGC messed up and they should have a star.

 

Then maybe it got docked a 70 due to its toning. That does happen.
Part of grading really is eye appeal, if your coin isn't a full struck, beautiful eye appealing coin, then not only did it not get a 70, but it didn't get a star.

 

See, now was that so hard. I know it gets tiring typing it over and over again, but we always have new members who need to read your opinion. So even though I can read between the lines, to others it may appear that you were just being grumpy.

As for stating that the coins are overgraded an me trying to convince you otherwise, I won't do that. I understand that you use a different grading standard than the TPG's and myself. However, I hope the TPG's don't change their standard as I stand to be hurt financially if they do. I play the grading game with the rules that are accepted in the market and are employed by the TPG's. You grade coins strictly adhering to ANA standards. Because of this, we will often disagree on the grade of coins. It is important to note that it is not a question of right and wrong. The deciding factor is which standard is applied.

I will admit that I will not change my opinion until the TPG's change theirs. However, it would be extremely difficult for an active collector to flourish using an entirely different grading standard than the TPG's. The coins would simply never be available at the price you were willing to pay. I like collecting coins so I play the game.

 

Paul, I agree with the statements above. I am going through my raw nickles and most of my nicer (raw) nickles have less issues than the 1st coin. The 2nd, those two dings really turn me off to what would have been a very beautiful nickle. I would pass on these two as neither one deserves a high grade based on the photos. IMO I would rather spend my money on something like this and still have over $480 in my pocket.:

 

OK, it's after 5:00, what is the skinny on the coins?

 

Darryl,

I understand that you have some Jefferson Nickels that appear better than Coin #1. I have two points to make about your coins and I have not even seen them. First, the coins that you describe as nicer were all minted in the 30's and 40's. All of the Jefferson's minted in the 50's & 60's have the issues (poor strike, die wear, planchet flaws) that you see on Coin #1. My second point is that if your nicer coins were subjected to the scrutiny of my photographs and presented at 500 x 500 pixels, I am sure you would change your mind about most.

At this point I am going to divulge the grades of the coins because I think we have some very confused graders in our midst.

Coin #1: 1964 Jefferson Nickel NGC MS67 (Pop 7/0) $400




Coin #2: 1964 Jefferson Nickel NGC MS66* (Pop 1/0) $100

This coin represents the only 1964 Jefferson Nickel to obtain a star designation from NGC in any grade.




Given the quality produced by the US mint in the 60's these coins represent the best 1964 has to offer. You simply can't compare a coin from say 1940 to a 1964. The difference is strike is staggering. However, the number of marks (not planchet flaws) are similar for the assigned grade. Compare this 1940 full step nickel to Coin #1. Both coins are essentially identical with respect to color, luster, eye appeal, and surface preservation. The overall appearance of the coins are separated by strike alone.





A while ago we discussed in a thread about Peace Dollars we discussed how the TPG's make allowances for strike based on the date/mm. It seems that lesson has been lost during this exercise by almost everyone.

 

I just read somewhere that over a billion 1964's were produced and that 1 out of 30 were full step strikes. I wonder why more were not preserved by collectors! Thanks for this thread, I have learned a lot from it.

 

boy you are picking on the wrong guy. Fortunate for you, Doug has a very long fuse, little ego, and an ocean of experience and knowledge that he is entirely secure with.

Ruben

 

Dang...$400? Lehigh, that post alone may have just convinced me to start having some of my stuff graded. I KNOW that my 1964 is a better coin than your example. Just speculation, but...If I had NGC grade mine, and it came out a 68...what do you think it would sell for? Even if it didn't go 68, I am confident it would match the 67 grade. If I sold it I would then need to find another superb 1964...but my standards aren't that high, that shouldn't be too hard!

I'm going to scan it shortly...maybe try to get a picture. I know it won't be that good though. (The picture)

 

Hypothetically, an NGC MS68 or PCGS MS67 would sell for $5K+ IMO.