Guess the Grade-----1953-S Jefferson Nickel NGC

Looks like a 66 to me.

Hope you are well, Lehigh.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I give it a 66. The fields are strong enough on the obverse to give it more than a 65. The the scatter on the reverse and the one cut on the cheek hold it back from a 67. I don't think a 67 should have a cheek cut that deep.

I find it interesting the information about planchet flaws on the cheek. Maybe I'm not as good a grader as I like to think I am, but I do think they hold the grade down unless they are very small. In effect, they have to be virtually invisible at normal eyesight, or perhaps very low magnification no higher than 3x to not effect the grade. Perhaps technically, they shouldn't affect the grade, but the grades are often assigned by marketvalue too, and I do think they play a role. In effect, if I were paying 67 money, I'd want a nicer reverse and cheek regardless of source.

So I reiterate...since the coin likely looks perfect at first glance with the naked eye, but then you can discern the cut on the cheek and imperfections on the reverse by naked eye, I don't think it could quite go for a 67. I could even see a 66+ on it though and I'd love to have that coin.

Steve

 

I guess what I was saying (rather poorly) was that this coin shows that the planchet flaws can look like contact marks, but are not. As you know, you look for them in the most recessed parts of the die, and with this coin, as one gets further from the center, the marks disappear.

I would agree that for a 53-S, this coin is exceptionally well struck, but most people don't realize that my statement is relative to other 53-S, not to most other jeffersons.

Many people don't realize that strike characteristics for a date will figure in the grade. This coin is notoriously weakly struck, so finding one with a much better strike than this is quite a rare find.

 

I voted 66 before I read through the thread. A very nice obverse (very clean compared to many other Jeffersons Lehigh and others have posted here). The reverse does not sit as well with me but now that I've read the thread, I wonder if some of the marks I didn't like are mintmade and therefore maybe it has a shot at 67. Something pretty strange happening around the steps.
By the way if planchet flaws aren't factored into the grade, does a coin with no planchet flaws qualify for anything? A pat on the back?

 

In the grading process, planchet flaws are not supposed to be counted against the coin. In the marketplace, they will certainly detrimentally affect the price of the coin, regardless of the assigned grade. Of course, that is just my opinion.

 

Nice coin, it's pretty clean, besides the hit on Jefferson's temple, it's a little weakly struck, so I would say 65, unless weak struck examples are very common for this year, then I would say 66.

 

could go for a 66 but not sure

 

I think it's less than the lowest #, because of the strike and wear. Look at the hair at the bottom of the ear. At the top of the head to the rim, field scrs also scrs in front of the chin. On the back the steps lines are gone. below the steps from right to left scrs just below "Monitcello". That's my 2 cents. -O) Even if a weak strike.

 

I'm seein' a lot of hairlines, but those may be on the holder. I go with '66.....

 

The hairlines are die polish lines which don't affect the grade.

 

IMO, they do affect the grade. Not like scratches, but they do affect the eye appeal. That eye appeal is a large part of the grade particularly for high end coins.

 

Just like the planchet flaws, the TPG's claim that they do not penalize coins during the grading process for die polish marks on the coin. To that end I have seen MS68 Mercury Dimes with heavy die polish lines. That does not mean that they don't affect the price of the coin in the market. Typically I try to avoid coins with die polish lines as I find them unattractive but sometimes the rarity of the coin compels me to tolerate them.

 

It looks as though this thread has run it's course. From the poll, it seems that the CT community is torn between MS65 & MS66. While those of you that guessed MS66 are close, in the end only MPCUSA guessed correctly. NGC being more liberal in their grading of Jefferson Nickels gave the coin an MS67 grade.



Personally, the mark on the cheek and the combination of marks and planchet flaws on Monticello would have been enough for me to downgrade the coin to MS66. Having said that, I believe that the excellent strike of this coin and the outstanding luster and obverse surface preservation places this coin in the premium quality ranks of the MS66 grade.

Now I know some of you are skeptical about the strike and eye appeal, but the 1953-S typically looks like crap. Here is a photo of a PCGS MS66 that resided in the famous Compradore collection:




When the strike is compared to a typical strike such as this one, the quality of the strike becomes more apparent. I grade them equal in surface preservation, but luster and eye appeal go to my coin for sure. If I didn't hate PCGS, I might consider sending this coin in for the secure plus service. BTW, the price tag was right in the middle of PCGS MS66 and NGC MS67. I think it was a fair price for a PQ MS66 1953-S Jefferson Nickel.

 

Well out of those 2 that is certainly worth a point more then the second 53s...
You should have put it up as a guess the grade It would have been 63's lol
It's just weird that they give different years and mints different grading standards. Should that really matter?

 

Well that was fun, had me on the edge of my seat wondering what it was gonna grade and I am totally surprised with that MS67. I love the strike on it as it's a very good strike. Heck even on the reverse the strike looks great but that reverse, dang!! It just looks like there's so many scratches especially over the triangle. That said, I do need glasses and as we speak I am waiting to receive a new pair. Good going for ya' Lehigh, that's my year too so it made it even more exciting!

 

Well I can't say, that I am surprised. The specimen is a very nice coin. I don't know what the price difference is between a 67 and 66 but if I were bidding on the coin I would factor the 66/65 prices and bid accordingly.

Thank for the challenge Lehigh.

 

That was a lot of fun. Please post another one. Seriously, please.

That one was definitely tricky because there were aspects of that coin that were super nice...those fields were to die for, but the "hairy" look of the reverse was in the other direction. I'd like to see another one where the coin's conditions were more uniform.

And now, a statement from a sore loser:

Gotta say one other thing...I have been acquiring cheap slabs of Jeffersons to help me hone in on my own grading skills and it really does help you get within...say...half a grade. But all my slabs are PCGS. Perhaps this may have been the difference between the two grading services.

But that being said, you and I both know that there are hardly any MS68 nickels from that era in existence. I've seen nickels that are almost "perfect", and they (only) got a MS67...perhaps because of market grade issues...the grading services seem to have painted themselves in the corner with respect to assigning higher grades to nickels. I think that while PCGS standards are tighter on Jefferson nickels, both services are a little too tight and the curve seems to be skewed around MS65. It takes a really ugly nickel to go much lower than MS63, and it would take a ridiculously perfect one to go above MS67...the bell curve is too short (in the X direction). I think that perhaps NGC's bell curve might be more realistic just because the bell curve itself is longer. So maybe in the end, NGC's grade assigned is the right one and I need to adjust my thinking based on whose slab it is. So from now on, if the coin gets up in the MS66 or higher territory, maybe I should mentally add a 1/2 point...I don't know.

Fun and educational test...thanks.

Steve

 

I'm with you Duke. To me, production errors count as much as bag marks because you can see them and they detract from a smooth field. If you could choose between an MS67 coin that was smooth as butter, or an MS67 coin that had some manufacturing defects, you know you'd pick the nicer one. And since the main advantage of the grading services is to let people buy coins sight unseen, you'd think this would be taken into consideration. Perhaps manufacturing defects should be treated with extreme predjudice, or weighted twice what they are currently or something.

 

as far as die polish lines, please remember that to some, they are not butt-ugly. IMHO the show how pristine and well struck your surfaces are, but that's me.

I understand where people want "perfect" looking coins, but always remember that although eye appeal is part of the grade, eye appeal in and of itself is a subjective thing.

That means that there really is no single "correct" grade for a coin, merely opinion. Technical grade is something that can be nailed down, but not a "TPG grade" because market factors are in the mix.