Can I ask a stupid question?

Can I ask a stupid question in the search for knowledge and understanding?

I was looking at an older post on Jefferson Nickels and full steps. After reading through all the posts etc. It got me thinking about the nickel I have (see attached photo). When I looked up the price on PCGS for a 1969 S Jefferson nickel, it quotes MS and FS. After reading about the FS designation - it says that proof coins are excluded from the FS designation because of the way they were minted.

This is where my stupid question comes in - how would I know if it is a proof or not if it's a single coin by itself? Is this coin a proof? The coin came part of a collection, and I have no way of knowing if it ever was a proof (broken out of a proof set). From what I understand proofs in the late 1960s weren't all frosted and "fancy" as the proofs in the 70s though today.

Pictures 1 and 2 are of the coin without looking under a scope at the steps.
Picture 1 - Front

Picture 2 - Back


Which then leads me to the next question. If it is NOT a proof, then would you believe these to be full steps?



I ask in search of knowledge! Let me know your thoughts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

IMO…it is not a proof, it lacks the high reflectivity that is characteristic of proof planchets.

Yes, it appears to be Mint State and has 6 full steps so it would deserve to be awarded the FS designation…Spark

 

From the details of the steps I would venture to guess that this is a proof. Not all Jefferson proofs have the high reflectivity. I've seen some pretty dull ones in proof sets.

 

If I’m correct the 1968-S Nickels we’re only issued in Proof. Yours looks to be an Impaired Proof, meaning it has in some way been handled incorrectly as a proof. The steps are full but thh he says normal on proof coins.

 

PS- On coins it’s not front and back, it’s obverse and reverse.

 

Well, we don't really know...no one has ever actually asked permission before....

But certainly, your question isn't all that, ah, stupid. The picture quality isn't that great, but I suspect it actually is a proof. Those steps seem impeccable & it does have the "S" Mint mark. That said, the third side (read: edge) may be suspect, as it does not seem "pristine" in the pics I see. This just may be one of those coins which have to be seen "in hand".

Better pics would help. Also, a provenance would help, like how did you obtain it in this raw condition? Where has it been, etc.?

Thanks for posting!

JMHO

 

@Lehigh96

 

Nagengast writes "The first S mint nickel since 1954 caused a sensation at its issue, and there was some hording, thus the 68S is common as a BU coin". He also says 5 step frequency is 1:500. Collecting nut is right, it is probably an impaired proof. They made 3,041,506 proofs.

 

They minted 100,396,004 non-proof 1968-S Jefferson Nickels.

 

It looks very much like a proof to me.

 

The well defined full steps makes me think the coin is a proof issue. The rims look sharp and the devices well defined also. The photogs need better lighting because the images are a total washout. Either that or the post processing is sadly lacking.......

 

To coin an old phrase, there are no stupid questions, just stupid answers.

 

Looks like square rims and mirror fields to me. I also don't see bag marks. Compare a couple of full-step regular strike examples from PCGS.

I vote proof.

 

Nope, I was a kid paying close attention at the time. When SF started striking coins with the S mint-mark again in 1968, only cents and nickels were minted in business strikes. They kept minting nickels for circulation through 1970, and cents through 1974.

 

Not a nickel guy...but it looks like a proof to me.

 

I always go to the rims first if I question whether a coin is a business strike or a proof strike. Super flat and square rims tell me proof and I think yours is a proof.

 

Okay - try these photos...

 

Yeah that's a proof.

 

Yes to Question #1.
No to Question #2.
No to Question #3 (with the understanding that I am a Six Steps and all 3 Steps Sets guy).

 

It looks proof to me.