Does this Jefferson Deserve Full Steps?

I've seen much worse in PCGS holders, but I don't think it would make the more stringent NGC 5FS cut. I voted for PCGS FS.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Yeah, the 6th step is only visible in the first quarter. Both PCGS and NGC only require 5 complete steps for their respective full step designations.

 

Then I'd change my vote . Good luck on the submission .

 

The area under the 2nd pillar is the real trouble to me, Paul. The area to the right between pillars 3 and 4 is something that you could nit-pick, but the area under the 2nd pillar is clearly broken and precludes this coin from the FS designation

 

I have a really stupid question...and I'm not sure it totally applies to this coin, but more to FS Jefferson Nickels in general. When it comes to the FS designation...are we simply looking at strike quality or do bag marks come into play too? For example, lets say we have a beautifully struck nickel with very clearly defined steps...certainly worthy of the FS designation. However, there is a small bag mark/ding on the reverse in a very unfortunate place causing the definition of the steps to be lost for that small area. Does this ruin the FS possibility for this coin, or do the TPGs tolerate a small amount of bag marks if everything else is clearly defined?

 

I just read my PCGS grading book and for FS designation any break from any source will stop a coin from receiving the FS designation .

 

Well, then that answers my question. Thanks!

 

Mike,

I agree with you but given the price difference, I feel obligated to send it in at least once. This coin is an example of the conundrum that is Jefferson Nickel grading. If I send it to PCGS, I firmly believe it would get the FS designation, but I highly doubt they would grade the coin higher than MS66. On the other hand, it is an MS67 by NGC standards but not full steps. Either way, it is just a $200 coin. That said, I like it better than my current full step 1950-D MS67 and have already taken steps ensure that it replaces my current example.

Paul

 

One thing I've always liked about you, Paul, is that you judge the coin as the coin, and don't let the holder sway your opinion.

 

Uhhhh. Isn't that called "micro" grading since the TPG's use a 5x Loupe?

 

So, then I guess the question is...would you rather have this coin in a MS66FS or MS67 holder?

 

he said that he doesn't care much because either way, the coin is worth about $200

 

You are correct but I do think that the bridge is small enough that the graders might not see it under only 5X magnification. I will admit that before I took photos of this coin, I thought for sure I had a 5FS coin that had been graded before the NGC creation of the 5FS designation. It was only after viewing the photos that I noticed the 2 problem areas. At this point, I hope I'm guilty of micro grading.

 

Another dumb question...I have heard of NGC giving coins a 5FS and a 6FS designation. Was the reverse design changed to increase the number of steps at some point or does NGC "forgive" one of the 6 steps not being perfect when awarding the 5FS designation?

 

Answering this question really puts me in a bind. There are a great many people who believe that strike designations are a marketing scam. I am not one of those people because in general, I believe that Jefferson Nickels with full steps are usually better struck and more appealing than those without. However, when the price difference between a full step and non full step coin is in the thousands of dollars and the fact that a tiny imperfection barely visible to the naked eye decides the value of the coin is more than a little crazy. That said, I didn't make the rules, so I must play the game. Since in this case the value of a PCGS MS66 FS and an NGC MS67 are almost identical, I would prefer the coin be in an MS67 holder. Regardless of the designation or lack there of, the steps on this coin are essentially full. I would rather have the coin in the higher grade with just miss steps than the other way around.

 

This link should answer your question.

http://www.cointalk.com/threads/the...erson-nickels-defined-photographically.49827/

 

I'm not sure that strike designations are a scam...but I think they can sometimes give false confirmation of a good strike. I think it's hard to designate something well struck with using one feature. For example, I have personally seen SLQs given the FH designation and there is hardly any detail in the shield. So, I think those designations are nice...but you still have to look at the coin.

I figured you would opt for the MS67 grade since it sounds like this coin is replacing an existing MS67 in your collection...not that it really matters.

OK, I think I get it. Based on what I understand...a 5FS has 4 distinct line (so 5 distinct steps)...however the design does actually contain 6 steps (5 lines) so coins given the 5FS are not 100% FS...am I understanding that correctly?

 

You got it. 4 distinct lines = 5 full steps and 5 distinct lines = 6 full steps. Until 2004, NGC only recognized coins with 6 full steps for the FS designation. After 2004, they used 5FS & 6FS. Here is a photo of what a 6FS coin looks like.

 

OK, that makes senses. Beautiful photos by the way.

It almost feels like the 5FS designation is sort of cheating a little to me. I'm not sure if that's a fair thing to say. I would think a coin either has full steps or it doesn't. 5FS is almost a "close enough" way of thinking. I'm not sure I like that.

Then again, I don't collect Jefferson's in a serious manner so I guess I shouldn't care. This just seems odd to me.

 

I like most designations but the 5 step designation seems to me a way to make money . IMHO if it doesn't have the 6 steps it shouldn't receive the designation . It's like saying a SLQ has a full head but no ear hole . Is 4 steps next ?