Grade this '40-S Jefferson Nickel

Pulled this out of another thread I started because it kind of got buried, there. Gave it a catchier title. Here goes...

Need a grade on this coin. Pics could be better, I'm sure.

Other questions:

1. Look at the closeup of the ponytail. I believe that's just how these nickels in the '40s were designed. They were designed pretty incomplete down there. Confirm or deny/explain, that "weakness/incompleteness" is just part of the design.

2. Look at the mint mark in that closeup. It appears to be a RPM, with the underlying mark sneaking out just to the East. Confirm or deny/explain.

3. Look at the closeup on the 4 in the date. There's what looks like a die chip, top-inside. There's some doubling, there, too, and that doesn't look like strike-doubling, to me. For one, it's not lateral, but rather spreads North and South. Sometimes, I think, I can even see some "spread" in the other numbers, too. Am I looking too hard at this? What do you think (in particular, on this 4)?

4. Finally, this one has about half the middle-steps, but all 5 of the side-steps. I think an FS speaks just to the middle-steps, though. Is that correct? Or, do you need side-steps, too, for FS?

Thanks!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

1) I believe you're right on the ponytail design. It looks correct, to me, for a coin of that period.
2 - 3) I'll defer on these.
4) Correct. Full steps just pertains to the steps underneath the four columns in the middle of Monticello.

 

As for the date and mintmark, I'm leaning towards Machine Doubling--
If you check out varietynickels: http://varietynickels.com/pages/jefferson-nickel/variety-listing/1938-1941.php
the RPM listed for 1940-S is the only RPM that has been listed at this time. If you can post better photos we may be able to take a better look at what it is.

Doesn't NGC also taken into account the side steps?....

Speedy

 

Wow, Doug, what an analysis. I'm going to take and post a few more pics when I get my camera back (maybe tomorrow, it's back on loan), just to give you a better look at some more of it. Never thought that mm might be DDD, but, now that you mention that, I can see it in MONTICELLO, as well. There's a lot of DDD across the building, too, which, I also notice, the coin you posted has. Just an observation. What's the grade on that thing, anyway? And, is it FS? I'll thank you for those pics, too, as they're a useful reference addition to my file.

BTW, FYI, I can also see mine has that thing beat all to heck on the side steps (I'll show off those pics, too...hey, a coin has to maintain some dignity ). For now, though, let me just leave you with, "What do you think of that interior die crack (pictured)?" If you agree it's an interior crack, I suppose that's also compatible with the weak die state. Now, why do I have the distinct feeling I'm going to be told that ain't no crack? Guess you just have a way of doing that to people, when you grade their coins (JUST KIDDING! ).

 

Thanks, Speedy, I didn't see your reply, there, when I logged on. That's useful information. New pictures are on the way and I'll also shoot that mm some more (camera's back "on loan," again, for now). :thumb:

 

I concur.

 

{rant}
What I found striking about this thread (pun intended), is that the highest graded FS coin is actually MORE weakly struck overall than the OPs. Look at the reverse of that FS coin everwhere except on the steps.... Yet the FS chasers would pay three or more times the money for the strike quality in less than 5% of the coin and ignore/discount the strike in the rest of the 95%. Silliness!
{/endrant}

 

p.s. no disrespect to FS collectors, but by golly, please pay up for completely fully struck coins, and don't focus on one spot!

 

p.p.s. as for the coin itself, I'd grade it AU 58-ish -- the scratches look to me to be circulating in nature, and not the result of a wipe. Save those scratches I think it would grade out as MS, but with them, I'd have to net grade it down to AU. Sorry, no FS.

 

Speedy, I have to give the camera back again so I kind of went overboard on these mm pics. I'm no picture-snatcher. But, here are some other angles. In fact, I'll tell you where I'm leaning. This could all change, of course, should I learn something new along the way. But, I ask myself, what causes one to punch a rpm, if not that the existing mm is in trouble, in some way? You do see the lines coming out East of the mm? Would that be die deterioration, maybe? Maybe that existing mm was in trouble. Could this mm be a re-punch on top of that die-deteriorated mm? So...I'm leaning toward something like that. I've got a few other '40-S...middle-of-the-road VF, on a good day...I don't see any hint of this on their mms, though. So, let me know what you think off these pics, if these suggest anything to you. Thanks.

 

Might not reasonable minds conclude that "wipe" you're seeing across the middle of the building was caused by a related phenomenon (i.e., be a planchet thingy)? Or do you find that implausible?

 

typically when you see doubling on the MM and other areas it is strike doubling, not DD. There also is no listing in the cherrypickers guide for that year, even though that doesn't eliminate it, it sure reduces the likelyhood. FS only looks at the steps under the pillars.

 

Thanks for your reply, cncman. Check out that Coneca link Speedy posted (supra). I guess these do turn up from time to time. I may have this one attributed one day, just for the heck of it. Until then, you guys are the attributors. And, I do see your contrary point of view.

BTW, I wonder what "under the pillars" and side steps would fetch. I guess that's the grand slam.

 

Sure, they do turn up. But that link has an repunched mint mark not a double die. MMs are usually punched into the die after the die is hubbed which is why they rarely occur together, and if you look at your MM vs the RPM in the link you will see a big difference. I hope you did find a new variety, but it sure looks like strike doubling to me, there isn't a seperation in the serifs and looks too "ghost like". You can probably find a variety expert to look at it for you at a show. The reason that the center steps are looked at as the standard is because the high point of the obverse is right over the steps making it a low pressure point that makes weak strikes. Typically if you have FS you would have the side steps full as well. Good luck and have fun with it.

 

I'm leaning towards die deterioration/machine doubling even after the new photos.
The only photo that I see that might would change my mind is the one on the 2nd row, and on the right.

You have the coin in hand - take a look around the rest of the coin and see if you see the same type of doubling on the same side of the letters/numbers.
If you still feel that it has a good chance at being an RPM then my suggestion would be to send it to James Wiles for him to look at. Most likely you can get his info off of his website, but if you need his email let me know...I have it here somewhere

Speedy

 

Well, I'll certainly keep that in mind. But I've seen that streaking, before, and sometimes it's off-color, or even faintly-toned, as in this case.

I'd like to move onto one other thing. If you'll look at the middle of the building on the coin you posted, I don't necessarily see a weak strike, there, but rather a terrible die-state. I of course see my die-state as deteriorated, too, however, as much better, there, as is evidenced by the resulting strike, which is crisper in detail. But, just look at the dome on the coin you posted, and at those dome windows, and I think you'll agree, that thing was struck just fine. I believe mine also has some strike or deterioration doubling in MONTICELLO, which the coin you posted doesn't have. Bottom-line, the coin you posted just never had a chance at a crisper building-strike from the get-go, that die was just too shot in that area (middle of the building). But, that's how I see the difference in the detail between these two, just a difference in the die-states. In the coin you posted, the areas that look like a weak strike are just a shot die (poor little thing didn't have a prayer, there ).