1957 Jefferson Nickel: Artificial or Natural Toning?

Paul, you obviously know the toned Jeffersons market far better than I. My presence in that market is as a neophyte. In my opinion, I would not have questioned the ‘57 at all. I would think it 100% NT. The other two? Questionable would seem to be the obvious stance. Do you think the entire album was “juiced,” and if so, how? I am not being a wise guy; I am trying to get a handle on my expanding Jefferson collection. Those that I have bought from you have been consistently beautiful, and all clearly NT high end—High grade Jeffersons.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The 57-D is nuclear toned in violet and pink and is 100% AT IMO. Most toned 57-Ds come from mint sets and they don't look like that at all. Occasionally you find a target toned 57-D from being housed in an album, but still nothing like the one I just posted. As for you examples of PCGS coins, they are all from the 60's which were stored in cello mint packs which actually have been known to impart those colors. That said, since the that pink/violet/blue color scheme can be generated via heat rather easily, I think PCGS is foolish for grading any Jefferson Nickel with that color scheme.

That said, you are really tempting me to send my 57-D to PCGS. The surfaces are MS66 quality and if I get that coin in PCGS plastic, I could sell it for a significant premium. And since you just saved me $25 on that E-Bay coupon, I might take my found money and try to parlay it.

 

It's not that all the coins were AT, it was that whomever assembled this collection obviously didn't know the difference between NT and AT and they purchased many, many AT coins. Considering how many have a similar look, it is likely that he purchased most of his AT coins from the same source.

That doesn't mean definitively that he purchased the 1957 from the seller of the more obvious AT coins, or that the 1957 is even AT/QT. MY problem with the coin is the blue color on the reverse which I personally have never seen on a naturally toned Jefferson. My photo makes it look more acceptable than it really is. In hand, the reverse makes the toning look very questionable. The only other coin I have dominated by that blue color is 49-D that is most definitely AT. Maybe I can dig it out and take some photos of it later.

And you got some really nice war nickels that came from a capital plastics collection which imparts a rather unique color scheme.

 

I'd consider sending it in. I previously would have thought it didn't have a chance (like you said that it can be recreated with heat), but I've seen enough examples slabbed to believe that PCGS can be loose at times with these.

The ones that I did link, you are right that they are from the 60s (and those had different storage methods). I recall seeing something similar from the 1950s but can't find it now.

These two are all I can find but they aren't as nuclear:

https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/765016/1956-D-Jefferson-Nickel-PCGS-MS-65-Toned

https://www.pcgs.com/cert/39400524

 

Yeah, you have convinced me, that 57-D is going to PCGS with my next submission. I will probably send the 57 to NGC since the surfaces aren't quite as good and NGC is more lenient with marks in the premium gem grades.

 

Absolutely submit it. The 57 would straight grade as a 67 star, or thereabouts. The 57-D would also straight grade through PCGS.

 

Btw, here is that blue toned 1949-D I was referring to earlier in the thread.

 

I dunno man, My opinion is as it was and it would be slabbed by NGC or PCGS and likely get a * on the slab to boot. I don't see many toned nickels beyond the golden hues, but I have seen slabs from either company on HA with similar colors in the pastel range that were not tagged as artificially toned even though they might likely have been. I think all of them can pass for natural, even if they are artificial because The grading companies won't be able to peg the artificial means of doing it, and the length of time the coins have been since being struck, it could be natural. I see the toning, I think it's extreme, but those artificial toning guys on ebay REALLY like to go big with the colors when they do it, it's usually bright, strong and extreme like aneon blue ring around the rim, or worse.

Look at this guy on Ebay if you don't mind a link to an auction
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1964-Jeffe...310457?hash=item595605ce79:g:2jkAAOSwMKxfSHmk

Legit?I dunno, for those that don't want to open links I put the pictures also. I think clearly AT but the slab says otherwise. A steal at $15.50 LOL!


**update** interestingly, this ebay auction is the same PCGS MS65 from ddddd's post earlier with the 5 of 6 links from Heritage Auctions from Sun, Aug 23, that sold for like $87.00, It's already on Ebay, 8 bids, up to $15.50 and about 5 days left of the auction. Heritage's pictures were better I guess. hahaha

 

I have seen this soft pastel tone in older rolls. Its NT and rather nice in my view.

 

I have never seen a Jefferson MS coin toned like that. I do have proofs straight graded MA that look like that.

 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/383699242156



Look at the starting big on this one. Dreamland.

 

That 1964 is AT all day and PCGS should be embarrassed that they let that get through. That said, you guys have convinced me that the 1957 from the original post is not extreme as the other and is worth a shot at submission. I will be sending it to NGC with my next batch.

 

Their decision also hinges on whether a coin meets their "look" criteria. I've seen hundreds (and had many myself) that were perfectly MA (mine and my LCS opinions) but rejected by both PCGS and NGC.

 

Then again, "market acceptable" seems to be a moving target as well . . . .


https://www.cointalk.com/threads/cac-toned-coins-selling-like-wildfire.366045/

Z

 

Nah. But new to this game. You should ask @Kentucky

 

Same barber?

 

I damn well don’t see that well. But the 57 is a red head. That’s the first thing I saw

 

I like it, NT

 

Strike 1

Strike 2

Strike 3, YOU'RE OUT!!!!!!

 

You might have sent too many in at the same time. It would be interesting to see the result if you only sent one of the bottom two in along with untoned examples.