39 Jeff proof??

So I think I came across a proof!! Or should I say I hope I came across a proof. What do y’all think!??? Sorry about the cheap loop and iPhone pics.

Mike

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Unfortunately, IMHO, not a proof.

The rims on a proof are more squared.

 

Agree about the rims.
But then it appeared to have a proof like luster.
Unless it's been plated.

 

I’m leaning towards not a proof coin. I’ve never seen a proof with those types of marks on the steps and there even seems to be some planchet roughness on the obverse that wouldn’t exist on a proof. So the obvious problem is why do the surfaces look reflective like a proof? One option already given is that the coin could have been EDS and have semi-prooflike surfaces. The other option is that the surfaces have been altered either by playing or light polishing. I think I would need to see the coin in hand or see better photos in order to make a definitive judgement.

 

I’ll get some better pic today

 

Looks like a ‘39 with a ‘38 reverse. In that condition it’s a valuable coin as far as Jefferson nickels are concerned. I agree with our fellow enthusiasts. Not a proof. But check to see which reverse was used on proofs.

 

Can you get a clear picture os the last S in PLURIBUS? The second T in STATES? The step edges?

https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1939-5c-reverse-1938/4176

 

Here are a couple of more pics

 

There was a post early that made me go look. I new I had a couple of 39’s

 

It may have been polished. The shine appears unnatural.
Which reverse is it?
I like the 39 because even though they are 80 years old they still circulate.
We need more coins like that but except for Lincolns, there aren't many.
And there are several varieties. 1939 doubled die, 1939 reverse of 38, 1939 reverse of 1940.

 

Those are much better photos and I can now make two definitive statements.

1) It is not a proof.
2) It has been harshly cleaned, the last two photos show the hairlines clearly.

It doesn’t have the look of a polished coin which usually suffers a loss of detail in the polishing process. It is just a cleaned early Jeffy.

 

I disagree, the second set of photos show that coin is clearly a 1939 Rev of 40.

 

...I compared the OP coin to the link @Kevin Mader supplied and, imo, agree it is not a rev. of ‘38. And I agree it is not a proof...more yet to research on the rev of ‘40 ...Spark

 

Linked below is my thread on this topic from 2012.

Jefferson Nickels Reverse of 38 vs Reverse of 40

 

Mike - thanks for the better pictures. Unfortunately, our colleagues are correct. This is the common 1939 with the 1940 reverse. 3 Diagnostics point to this: serif on the top curve of the last S in PLURIBUS. The last T in STATES does not have the familiar split at the end of the crossbar. Two definitive vertical grooves at the ends of the steps. As also pointed out, the rim is not as square as is found on the proof, and while the coin retains sharp characteristics, they are not proof-like. Luster may be natural, or enhanced as others point out. But it's a nice high grade specimen worth retaining.

 

Since it has been harshly cleaned, it is not a high grade specimen, but a details coin.

 

Yup, it is a hole filler at this point, lucky to get a $1 for it.

 

Is it cleaned? If so it is details. But it looks XF (pretty good find if a circulation coin of that age).

 

It looks cleaned to me, but even in problem free AU, these are only worth a few bucks. Heck, even in MS67 they are only worth about $100.

 

Thanks to you all!! I have had that guy for at least 3 years. I found it crh. I just put it in a tube with the of 150 nickels. I keep any of the from 1960 and below. I haven’t had time to go through all of them. I just came across that one when I read a post on the 39 with 40 revs and seen it has steps left on it. Just figure it had to be a impaired proof. I’m waiting on a usb camera. That loop is giving me a headache!!! When I get it I’ll post pic just for grins ..... thanks