Does this Jefferson Deserve Full Steps?

That's what it feels like to me. I'm glad I'm not the only one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Maybe it's better to strictly differentiate btw 5FS and 6FS instead of becoming too lenient one day... just a thought. I have seen old ANACS slabs saying 5.5FS... there it's getting ridiculous:

 

The reason the 5FS designation exists is because PCGS only ever required five full steps for a Jefferson to qualify for their FS designation. The PCGS standard became the standard due in part to PCGS market share but also because there are so many date/mm that don't exist in 6 full steps. The full step Jefferson collectors wanted a way to complete their sets so 5 full steps gained tremendous support from the collector base. NGC had no choice but to create the 5FS designation or lose the Jefferson Nickel market to PCGS forever.

There is no risk that they will lower the restrictions for full steps in the future so don't worry about 4 full steps. I understand how you guys feel about the designation, but the desire to obtain full step nickels predates the TPG's. The PAK Full Step Nickel Club was created in 1977 by Philip Petrillo, Adolf Weiss, & Karl Nenninger, hence the acronym. The creation of the full step designations by the TPGs was born out of customer demand more than a money making scheme.

 

Very interesting. We always say that the TPGs adjust their standards to meet the market's desire...but I had yet to find a clear cut example. This is a text book example. Nothing really wrong with that I suppose...they are doing what their client base is asking for. But, now I have a perfect example to use in the future when those TPG discussions come up.

 

It really isn't ridiculous when you understand the grading method that they are using. Both ANACS and SEGS use the PAK Full Step Nickel Club Quarter Step method of grading steps on Jefferson Nickels. An explanation of the quarter step method can be found here:

VarietyNickels.com Understanding Full Steps

If you look at the first visual representation on that website, you will find steps that grade 6-5-5-6. This is a coin that would qualify for 5.5 steps. Half of the coin has 6 steps and the other half has 5 steps, hence the coin has 5.5 steps. In order to qualify for 6FS, the coin would need to be 6-6-6-6 by the quarter step method. In order to qualify for 5FS, the coin would need to be at least 5-5-5-5 by the quarter step method.

NGC & PCGS don't use the quarter step method but they do follow the basic premise of counting step lines in order to evaluate the steps on the coin. Personally, I like the quarter step method and would rather see the quarter step grade on every Jefferson Nickel rather than a FS, 5FS, or 6FS designation. As such, I will often provide the quarter step evaluation of the steps when I sell a Jefferson Nickel.

 

I have read about that before and understand the meaning of 5.5FS. But still I think it's getting too specific and I don't see such a big difference in 6-5-5-5 and 6-5-5-6, to give an example. When looking at my own FS Jeffersons I see that one coin is weakly struck in the area of the pillars, so why bother if it's a 5FS or 5.5FS when other areas are not as sharp?

 

On a second thought if all TPGs would agree to use the PAK method it wouldn't be bad either... having different standards just makes it complicated.

 

The designation is all about how sharp the strike is.

Nickels are notoriously poorly struck for a number of reasons, among the most important being that the metal is hard and so the Mint has to use extra force to strike them, but they balance strike quality with die life because if they strike the dies too hard, they won't last.

Something that I would imagine most don't know is that nickel dies are also spaced a little bit farther apart than most other coins to alleviate the problem of "finning" the planchets. This also creates weaker strikes as well.

This may be the reason that nickel collectors are so crazy about the strike of their coins. It means everything in relation of quality

 

I agree with almost everything in this post. There are certainly examples of well struck Jefferson Nickels with no step detail,



as well as 6 step examples with poor overall strikes:



That said, the majority of full step nickels have above average strikes. But you are right, each coin needs to stand on its own merits, not based solely on a strike designation that focuses on a tiny area of the coin.

As for the "lunatic fringe" comment on the other thread, that comment was directed solely at your grading methods, not the sum of your numismatic knowledge. But I think you know that. What you don't seem to know is that the comment is absolutely correct. I don't expect you to believe me, you have made your opinion of my experience and knowledge abundantly clear. But there has to be some CT members who have numismatic knowledge that you do respect, Matt Dinger or Tom Bush perhaps. Maybe you should ask them about the validity of my comment and get back to us.

 

I have (on other forums); nobody thinks I'm the problem, and nobody stops posting on CT because of me.

 

If you don't think it is a problem that experienced members stop posting on the forum, then you are a bigger problem than I realized. Furthermore, when you use words like the "party line", it creates the perception that you disagree vehemently with TPG grading practices. In other words, "lunatic fringe".

Why don't you explain why your grading methods are correct and the TPGs and everybody who accepts and agrees with TPG grading are wrong? Why should everyone believe you rather than people like: David Hall, John Dannreuther, John Albanese, Ron Guth, Mike Sargent, Greg Rohan, Mark Salzberg, Rick Montgomery etc?

 

And it's incredibly helpful to newer collectors on these boards for you to use your 1960s grading standards in the year 2014 how? Do you also still use an abacus?

The days of yore when MS grading came in only flavors of MS60, MS63, MS65, and MS67 are gone. Continuing to dwell in those "good 'ole days" does nothing for helping collectors who are functioning in a collecting environment of 2014. The difference between your grading and the grading of those people Lehigh mentioned are that they remain in the coin markets today, and have had no choice but to change with the times. I mean, do you also still curse the store attendant when you fill up with gas because it isn't 39 cents a gallon anymore?

 

I think this can be a difficult issue...and it's one that every collector must make for themselves. What grading standard do you want to adhere to. The market seems to accept (currently) the grading standards of PCGS and NGC...even though they are different, seem to change frequently and lack an accurate published grading guide. That is what the market accepts. I think with enough study and looking at slabs...and staying current, one can get a pretty good feel for the market grading trends and know what is currently considered good for a given grade. But, that takes a lot of studying of slabbed coins in hand and you must stay up to date.

On the other hand, one can choose to use a published grading guide like the ANA guide for grading. It changes very little over the years...but it grades coins quite differently (and more conservatively) than the TPGs currently do.

Now, which is correct? I don't think it really matters as long as you are consistent. If the coin is a MS63 according to the ANA and MS65 according to PCGS...it is still the same coin and worth the same money. As long as you know that such a coin will get current market prices for an MS65 coin...there should be no issues.

 

There are two kinds of collectors, Doug. There's the kind that fights the idea of being made sheep of, and the other kind.

 

None of the TPGs use the ANA grading standards (and never have as far as I know). Maybe I'll start posting my grade guesses based on the EAC standards? or the UK system of grading? Because those two methods are just as irrelevant when someone asks "What will the TPG grade this coin" as are your ANA grading standards.

When I see you occasionally post grade guesses based on the count of tick marks on coins, I know there is a bit of a disconnect of your grading standards and those used by the TPGs. One isn't better or worse, they are simply different (though, when someone posts a coin and specifically asks for what you think the TPG will grade the coin -- a guess based on irrelevant different standards is of little educational use). You never miss a chance to post some negative demeaning comment about what they should have graded the coin.

As an aside, my absolutely favorite Jefferson Nickel in my collection does not have the FS designation -- but I don't really care what the plastic says. It is a stellar coin, purchased for the coin, not the tomb.

In summary, I don't buy plastic based on the label. Thankfully, I mostly collect world coins where the grade difference between an MS64 and MS66 often affects the price little, and I can still chose to collect the MS64 if it looks better to my eye with little if any long-term downside.