Guess the Grade-----1953-S Jefferson Nickel NGC

We haven't done too many of these lately and I kind of miss them. Please guess the grade of this 1953-S Jefferson Nickel graded by NGC in the attached poll and provide your reasons for your grade in your reply.



Comments and opinions of the coin are welcome as always.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Ms.67

 

Didnt see the pole??

 

I would grade it 63 because of the weak strike, even though the fields are gorgeous, but I'll guess that they gave it a 66.

 

Are you saying the coin has MS66 surfaces but you would penalize 3 points for the strike or are you basing your grade on an established grading standard that requires at least an average strike for the MS64 grade?

BTW guys, please vote in the poll even if you leave comments.

 

My guess is an MS65, great strike for this year! Just a guess, the reverse side is lacking. I mean the strike is nice but that's it.

 

kind of a weak strike.

 

No, I'm saying that from experience *I* would grade the coin 63 and that I think *NGC* graded it 66.

I don't go by any point system, deduct for this, add for that. I look over the coin and give an overall grade.

I *am* saying that if the strike was better, I would grade it higher. It's a nice looking coin, but the strike is as weak as reused coffee grounds.

 

I understand. I use the same general method where I look at the entire coin and form an opinion. I then go over the coin with a loupe to ensure that nothing changes my mind.

 

To me, that is a 67 coin were it not for the steps and his cheek. However, those are the prime focal areas for me. My question is how much they took off for these. I will try 65.

 

The strike on the obverse of this coin is very clean looking but weak. The fields are so clear that you can see die polish lines on both sides of the coin .

The reverse has planchet flaws in the center of the design, as is very common with this particular date and mint mint mark combination. This is one of the worst struck date and m/m Jeffersons in the series. When I answered the poll, I said MS-65, but upon researching the strike characteristics of the coin, I would say that NGC gave it an MS-66.

Many people have a hard time distinguishing contact marks from planchet marks on nickels. Many times the dings just aren't struck out of the planchet. This coin is a clinic on that exact trait. It is struck very poorly in the center, and that's where almost all of the marks are. These are not contact marks, they are planchet marks not struck up enough to be obliterated. They don't count off in regards to the grade. Keep this in mind when grading Jeffersons.

 

Mike,

You are absolutely correct about planchet flaws on Jefferson Nickels. And while there are some on the reverse, I am not sure I would classify this coin as putting on a clinic. Typically, the main area for planchet flaws is the jawline and collar on the obverse. For example:



You are also correct that the 1953-S is one of the worst struck in the entire series. I think most collectors have an idea of what a Jefferson Nickel with an average strike should look like. What they forget is that an average strike changes from year to year. This coin actually has one of the best strikes I have ever seen for a 1953-S and would certainly be classified as an above average strike. I believe fret pointed that out earlier in the thread.

While the strike of this coin may pale in comparison to a 1940-D, it is excellent for a 1953-S.

 

i gave it a 66

 

FAR above my skill level of grading. There is just too much going on with this coin for me to try and take a stab at a grade. Are those Die polishing lines on the reverse through "MONT"?
I assume they must be, and I'm sure those are common on Jefferson nickels.
That second coin you posted..... that is one NASTY jawline. Planchet defect eh? What would cause that? Is it just a LDS?

EDIT TO ADD:
The first coin you posted, sure is beautiful though! Very clean cheek, which means more to me than a solid strike, or sharp toning, as this series usually seems to have scattered marks all over the jawline and cheek.

 

Snaz,

Planchet flaws are pre-existing. Typically, the striking process eliminates planchet flaws. However, Jefferson Nickels are found so poorly struck that finding coins with remnant planchet irregularities in the deepest recesses of the dies is common. Believe it or not, that nasty jawline belongs to an MS67 coin. As Mike pointed out earlier, planchet flaws are not counted against the coin during the grading process. Here is a photo of the 1952 MS67.



Now that you know that most of the marks on the reverse are planchet flaws and the strike is above average for the grade, what grade will you give the coin?

 

Well, I stand by my first statement that I could hardly give it an educated guess, but I'd say it is just a sliver short of 67. Perhaps a candidate for the +? The nick on his Temple stops it IMO
:goofer:
Yeah, I had no doubt the second coin was a seriously high grade, I realize the defects like that don't affect the grade, I also realize I brought Die state into a discussion of planchet flaws... Not really the same area.
So I retract my LDS statement.

 

I went with 65.
The usual light die. The reverse doesn't look that good but the obv looks pretty clean.
Do they grade these like Morgans and more on the Obv?
And on the Obv in the field left and right it almost looks like there are hairlines, what is that or is it the case?

Thanks for the guess the grade LeHigh!!

 

I have found that the obverse has a greater impact on grade in every series including ones with strike designations on the reverse (Mercury & Roosevelt Dimes & Jefferson Nickels). The hairlines you see are die polish lines and have no impact on the grade of the coin.

 

It's a very shaky , 66/65

I'll agree that the coin in question actually has an exceptional strike for the issue , as previously commentated , that is what most 66's are exactly . Overall I gave it a 65 . Points lost pertain to lack of detail and eye appeal of the reverse. Remember , a coin has two sides .

 

My vote is MS65. TC