GTG 1945-D Jefferson Nickel (NGC)

Please GTG of the 1945-D Jefferson Nickel shown below. I have attached a poll for you to cast your vote and you may select up to 4 different things: the numerical grade, 5FS or Not FS, the + designation, and the * designation.






As always, comments welcome, and please remember to vote in the poll.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

MS-65 but not quite full steps.

 

MS-66 FS

 

I graded the wrong way it's a 65+

 

Ditto.

 

@eddiespin @CamaroDMD @ddddd @medoraman

 

@kSigSteve @Morgandude11 @RonSanderson @Randy Abercrombie

 

@cladking @Evan8 @Tall Paul @Santinidollar

 

Wow... That's probably one of the finest war nickels I have seen. Though I am afraid that bottom step may have robbed this one of the "FS" designation. I am in at MS66*.

 

I went MS-66 and just barely got 5FS.

 

I don't know what they'll make of that involvement just above the back of the jaw. I'm leaning with @Evan8 on this at MS66 and getting the 5FS on a coin flip.

 

That is typical remnant planchet roughness that exists on almost every Jefferson Nickel business strike. The dark area on the front of the jaw is a luster graze.

 

That's why I'm at MS66. Does the TPG see it that way is the question.

 

Their stated standard is that planchet roughness should not affect the grade of the coin, but in reality, not every grader follows this rule.

 

That's not from the planchet, it's scratches on a high point. Same goes for the luster grazes on that high point, those scratches weren't from the planchet anymore than were those luster grazes from the planchet. To me and evidently to Evan8, big word time, they're de minimus. That means they don't mean nothing, champ.

 

Eddie, I promise you that they are treated as planchet roughness when they are on that area of the coin.

 

Here’s a nickel planchet that shows how a blank planchet looks after manufacturing. The blanks go through a violent manufacturing process that includes rolling out a sheet of metal, punching through it to create the rounds, getting through various feeders to reach each machine, having their edges rolled up, and going through baths and being tumbled with many other planchets to dry.

A silver planchet, like the 1945-D above, might have even deeper marks since it is a lot softer than nickel.


The so-called “planchet roughness” often appears on the high points of the coin. That’s because they are also the deepest parts of the die. The metal does not get pushed as firmly into these deep cavities as the rest of the coin. The struck surface of the coin retains some of the rough texture from the beat-up planchet. Nickel is even harder to strike than this silver example, so the roughness is often seen on the shoulder and cheekbone.

So they aren’t exactly scratches, since the surface of the coin has never been touched after striking. (Although they are dropped into a receiving bin after striking and then fed into bags, so various dings and dents may occur.) You can see here that they go every which way, just like on the planchet.

 

I think it's overgraded.

I'm guessing MS-66 FS. No plus.

FS is a judgement call here though. If withheld they might go 67 but either way it's overgraded.

I'd call it an especially nice gem (MS-65 FS). The coin has nice original surfaces and flash but die condition was too poor for me to grade it higher.

 

This is a great explanation. The same thing happens on Lincoln cents, only on Lincoln's shoulder.
I went MS-66 with op's coin simply because with the how big those images are, and the "planchet marks" as I like to call them, were distracting to me. However, 66 is my first instinct guess while I would not be surprised by a 67 grade, some of the weakness on the lettering also made me instinctively say 66. If the luster in hand is bright enough, those marks probably are hardly visible. @Lehigh96 knows Jefferson Nickels way better than I do, and I'm honestly more curious about the steps designation than anything cause that seems like it could go either way imo.

 

I totally didn’t know, Paul. With thanks to @RonSanderson for the explanation and picture. Pretty compelling. I know when I see it now.