I believe the mark under column 3 knocks it out. I also see some blending of the steps under column 2.
1. The large mark that crosses all of the steps, just right of the third colum, immediately rules this out as FS. 2. The top steps under the fourth column look incomplete, from your pictures. 3. The steps under the first column show weakness in your pictures, but I'm not sure if that is a shadow or actual bridging. For these three reasons, your coin is not FS.
My understanding of FS is the step area MUST be clear of ANY hits, scratches or other post-strike impairments that disrupt the lines. The lines must NOT be disrupted. At least that's what I'm looking for.
I didn't think it was the hits on the steps. But, more so, the depth and separation of the steps. On your Nickel it doesn't seem that there is even a hint of the fifth step under the third column.
I understand your point completely. I am the farthest thing from a professional grader. I guess the bottom-line is: Unfortunately, it's all subjective. If I as a laymen can say all 5 or 6 lines are complete and uninterrupted without wear, that would be my starting point. This much disagreement in our conversations would tell me something.
Rick- I know it gets rather convoluted. Have you seen this thread? https://www.cointalk.com/threads/th...erson-nickels-defined-photographically.49827/