The details are very weak but it doesn't appear to be from wear. Is it just a VERY weak strike? http://www.ebay.com/itm/Monster-Ton...82?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item484260e32e
uncirculated??? good grief. I don't think so. looks like a circulated coin that was run through the washing machine then left for a few years to tone up. But, I'm no expert. That's just my 2c with 3c change.
It doesn't appear to have many nicks, so I'm just going to say it was a weak strike. But let's wait for the nickel experts.
No need to wait. I already said it was a weak strike with a worn die. My 54-s nickels aren't as bad as this one, but here are some others that are MS with worn dies/weak strikes. I have plenty that look like the one the OP posted.
Look at this one. http://www.ebay.com/itm/1955-PCGS-M...20?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item4ab8c8b77c As seen in this thread: http://www.cointalk.com/t208636/
The 1954 S and 1953 S are common to find lacking details, this one is pretty much a typical strike. The whole original roll probably looked like that on the reverse with maybe an exception of an oddball or two being any better. Extremely hard to find to rare in full steps and often they have no step detail at all thus making them much more valuable when well struck. I suppose the price tag on this is for the toning, which ... well ... it's beauty and value is in the eye of the beholder. This grade and strike though is only worth a couple bucks at the most to me, "Monster" toned or not.
Wow. So I stand corrected, well sit actually, but I blather. Well ya' learn something every day. that MS65 looks like a chain saw got after it right after it was run over in a parking lot by a teenage doin' doughnuts. Really, all those deep scratches and it's still a 65? guess if it says PCGS, it must be true! (mumbles to himself)
Looks MS to me but mushy details, probably due to a combination of weak strike and worn dies. Nice toning though!
