GTG 1952-D Jefferson Nickel (NGC)

It looks to be a Strike through to me. Do you like the color on this better than the 44-S? You seemed to think that one had a shot at a star.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Once again, I equivocated. I really like the eye appeal. It is a very attractive coin. Luster is good, and I love the toning. Debating about the star, and I would think this coin has a better shot at a star than the 44s. So I will go 66*.

 

I would make the argument that nickel nickels are held to a different standard when it comes to colors verses war nickels. I’ve seen lovely pastel Jefferson’s with stars.

 

On the 44-S, I thought it did not have enough color for a star (and I wouldn't give that one a star if I was grading it). This one is closer but still a no from me.

Edit: I've seen very few nickels that were star worthy. In my opinion, most just don't tone to the levels it would require to deserve a star.

 

I would say that is true most of the time. I've seen some pastel ones with stars too. NGC isn't very consistent in giving out stars to nickels in general. I personally don't think many of the pastel nickels deserve a star but I would be ok with it if NGC consistently gave it (or consistently did not; just pick and go with it for all).

 

NGC is ridiculous with their application of the star designation with regards to Jefferson Nickels, which is kinda the point behind these two threads.

 

I agree that they are very inconsistent. Outside of Morgans (even though they do give out some questionable stars to coins with a small sliver of color), NGC does not do a good enough job with stars in most series.

 

NGC’s supposed standard for the star is “exceptional eye appeal.” Then again, in this definition of what they consider exceptional is quite contradictory. I find their description gives them far too wide a latitude. Morgans, particularly, are inconsistently awarded the star designation. I have owned Sunnywood, Battle Creek, and Aurora Borealis Morgans that should have been certain stars, by virtue of toning exceptional quality. Then again, I have owned fairly ordinarily toned Morgans that got the star, and it was laughable. Jeffersons have a difficult time with the star, as has been noted before. At any rate, here are NGC’s guidelines for the star. It confuses, more than clarifies, IMHO:https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/806/

 

65+

 

ms-63, details scratch on obv

 

as stated in the op that scratch is on the holder not the coin.

 

That is exactly right, if this nickel isn't good enough to get a star, then what would qualify? Rainbow toning on Jefferson Nickels doesn't get much better than this, but alas, NGC blows another one.

And of course, that is the correct grade, despite NGC's refusal to award Jeffersons the * designation.

 

Wow i was low(on purpose)thats really ashame how the war nickel got the star but this didn't gorgeous coin anyway and anyone would be satisfied to own it.

 

Maybe they just hate 1952-Ds with rainbow toning, this is my registry coin.

 

I don’t get it. The other coin gets a star, and this one does not? Score one for irresponsible subjectivity. I said 66*, but could easily see it as 67 star. They blew it all over the wall, as this meets the definition that I posted from NGC as “exceptional eye appeal.”

 

Both have distracting contact across the cheek. I liked this one better for the star though.

 

I think both 52's are more than worthy of a star.

The real question that remains - will the 67 take place in your registry?

 

I got them both side by side and the color and luster are still better on the 65 5FS so the 67 will not break into the registry set. It is going up on the block.

 

As usual, I was a point low compared to the TPGs. Or, the TPG was a point high compared to me

It probably didn't get the star because the reverse is kinda boring. I realize the obverse is great, but a neutral reverse can keep it from a star.