GTG Jefferson nickel #2

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by Morgandude11, Jun 3, 2020.

  1. Morgandude11

    Morgandude11 As long as it's Silver, I'm listening

    Two guess the grades for the same date.

    9C05106F-8A44-4697-A95E-BAF6FC1AD4BA.jpeg 7AAF3F8C-2481-4B99-840A-38695AB8752F.jpeg
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Legomaster1

    Legomaster1 Cointalk Patron

  4. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

  5. kSigSteve

    kSigSteve Active Member

  6. CamaroDMD

    CamaroDMD [Insert Clever Title] Supporter

    It at PR68*. I think it just misses the Cameo description but earns a * as a result.
     
  7. toned_morgan

    toned_morgan Toning Lover

    PR67 is my guess. Very nice coin!
     
  8. Morgandude11

    Morgandude11 As long as it's Silver, I'm listening

    There is an interesting twist on the two 1950 Jeff GTG threads.
     
  9. Morgandude11

    Morgandude11 As long as it's Silver, I'm listening

  10. Morgandude11

    Morgandude11 As long as it's Silver, I'm listening

    Twist on the GTG is that both are the same grade. I actually always agreed with the GTG—that this one was overgraded at 67, and the other one undergraded at 67. I do not think that they are both the same grade. I would have graded this one at 68, and the other one at 66* The other one has pretty gold toning, but the strike is much better, and this one is more brilliant, by far.
     
  11. CamaroDMD

    CamaroDMD [Insert Clever Title] Supporter

    Based on your photos, I'm really surprised this one didn't get a *. From my experience, NGC will use the "*" on proofs which are cameoish but not quite enough to get the Cam designation. The obverse especially looks like its there to me. Does it look that way in hand?
     
    Morgandude11 likes this.
  12. Morgandude11

    Morgandude11 As long as it's Silver, I'm listening

    Yes, definitely. It is much brighter than the other one, and has the very contrasty obverse of a cameo. The reverse is not quite there as a cameo. If I were grading it, I would have gone PF 68*, but you know how arbitrary it can get. I may send it for reconsideration, as it is a really good strike, when early Jefferson proofs are often not well struck.
     
  13. CamaroDMD

    CamaroDMD [Insert Clever Title] Supporter

    That's what I thought it would be (see above)...it seems like you and I often find ourselves on the same page. :D
     
    Morgandude11 likes this.
  14. Morgandude11

    Morgandude11 As long as it's Silver, I'm listening

    Yes, I think we always have, over the years. You, obviously, study your coins carefully, as do I. I am not an impulse collector. Early Jefferson proofs are extremely variable, especially the ones from 1938-41. The strike quality was generally poor, and finding a really sharp one is difficult. 1942 is a mixed bag. 1950, the first one after the 8 year gap, is all over the map on sharpness of strike, and planchet and die preparation. At this point, I have not found a 1939 proof for which I was willing to spend the money. It is low mintage, and really nice ones are scarce.
     
  15. CamaroDMD

    CamaroDMD [Insert Clever Title] Supporter

    I've started to study the proofs issued from 36-42 and have been surprised to find the great range of quality they come in. I'm not a huge Jefferson Nickel guy but I really like the Washington Quarter and I have been thinking about putting together a proof set from 36-42. That range of proofs really has a lot to it. The quarters seem to not be as bad as they are silver and softer...but I am still noticing the same kind of thing.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page