GTG 1947-S Jefferson Nickel (NGC)

Check out this thread and this image:

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/collecting-full-step-jefferson-nickels.265542/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I still get 4...

Here's my version of the ledges rather than the back of the steps...same result, 4.
Below 4, I see mush rather than a 5th defined line...



Actually, if I add another line...it's just barely there lol.
Ok, I concede lol

 

Here is a better thread from Lehigh himself

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/th...erson-nickels-defined-photographically.49827/

Note this verbiage:
"The 6FS designation will have 5 distinct lines and the 5FS designation will have 4 distinct lines."

 

That’s what I see. If I was interested in buying this coin I’d pass because of the label. No offense to the OP. He didn’t slab or grade it.

 

Got it thanks. I was overthinking it...just picture the steps
I still think it's pushing it on this coin though.

 

You count the number of complete "lines" and then add one to get the number of complete steps. If you look at your own diagram, there are clearly 4 complete red lines. The only issue is the small mark above the "E" that seems to interrupt the 3rd & 4th steps. For marks on the steps, both PCGS & NGC allow shallow marks that don't fully interrupt the continuity of the line. Now of course, whether that mark interrupts the continuity of the line is subjective, but from my experience that mark will rarely preclude a FS designation.

In your second diagram, you put the 5th red line too high up. It should be lower and run into the "mush" as you put it.

The overall problem with the FS designation is that people think it should be easy, clear cut, where everybody agrees. The problem is that no matter what standard you use to determine full steps, others are going to disagree with where you drew the line, no pun intended. Because everyone will define the standard that suits their eye, there will never be agreement. The result is that the TPGs get to determine the standard, and we as collectors need to figure out how they apply the standard and adjust accordingly, even if that means ignoring our own opinion of what the standard should be. As a result, I have found that collectors are far more punitive in their application of the FS designation than the TPGs.

To complicate matters further, the TPG graders make mistakes in both directions. I can show you countless examples of coins with obvious full steps that didn't get the FS designation, as well as coins that inexplicably got FS despite glaring interruptions of the step lines. Rather than provide several examples, lets look at just one. Below is a 1940 NGC MS67 that was graded in the 1990's prior to the inception of the 5FS designation. Back then, NGC required a coin to have 6 full steps to achieve the FS designation.





I purchased this coin for MS67 money and recognized that it clearly had 5FS so I submitted it for regrade to get the 5FS designation.



The grader must have been so enamored with the surfaces of the coin that he upgraded the coin by giving it a + grade, but forgot to add the 5FS designation. So while I was thrilled to get a +, I was seething that I had to resubmit this coin a second time in order to get the 5FS designation that it very clearly deserved.




Now if a grader can make a mistake as egregious as the one they made on this coin, imagine how many coins that are actually borderline in either direction that are graded improperly, based on the TPG's own standards. If you ever feel lost about how to apply the FS designation, just take solace in knowing you are not alone.