I am not a nickel expert. So take this for what it’s worth.... While the piece does show some nice mint luster all the features on the reverse seem very soft and worn. I think the exceptional luster on this one would lead one to think it should grade higher than it should. I am going XF-AU.
I agree with @Randy Abercrombie. I see small contact marks on the obverse, the reverse strike is weak. I don't collect this series either, but the lighting in the picture prevent me from really looking at the surfaces.
Thanks , it does have a scratch on the c i cents. I took a few more Picts. It has some glue or gum just below e pluribus that Iam trying to gently remove
Cosmetically, eye-of-the-beholder, that market grading bullshit. It's got some heavy die deterioration going on, reverse, but I like it. And that may be a lamination across the side of the roof, too, or planchet deformity of some kind. Keep it. Mark it on the flip something like that.
What looks like lamination is actually gum or glue that I am trying to remove, it does have a few small issues on the reverse but if you see it in person it looks very nice obverse and reverse. I will hold on to it for now and decide what to do with it later. I don't collect this type but I found this one in circulation and I think is in very good shape in overall.
Are you looking at what we're looking at, our left of roof? That's no Wrigley's Spearmint. That's die deterioration or a planchet lamination/flaw.
That doesn't look like gum or glue. I am referring to the lamination/planchet flaw on the top of the left column of Monticello. I change my grade to AU-58.
