Monster Grade

It looks over-graded.

I'd give it an MS-65+ or MS-66.

That said, maybe they're die marks and some on the holder.

I'm not sure without looking at it in-person.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think it's a bit more complicated that that.

I would imagine (and perhaps incorrectly) that Doug is using the ANA grading guidelines or something close to it. PCGS does not grade by those guidelines...they grade by their own and they are different. I would agree that based on what I have seen, this coin has more hits than other Jeff's grade as MS66 by PCGS. But, I wonder if it has anything that offsets that some. Maybe the luster is amazing on this coin. Maybe in hand it just glows. Maybe that eye appeal is missing from the photos.

 

I didn’t say I knew better than the PCGS graders. Most of us simply can’t believe that it’s truly a 67+ after having seen 3 different sets of pictures. Can we just agree to disagree here?

 

That wasn’t directed at you. That was for the arrogant crowd that thinks they can without a doubt grade better from pictures than the professionals with the coin in hand, I wouldn’t consider you nor the majority of posters part of that group.

 

What you are quoting is for a FS designation. Full steps are graded on a completely different scale. The steps are the last to show detail when a nickel is struck, this usually removes the majority (if not all) of the planchet's defects.

An ms 67+ (non fs) will show left over planchet defects, because
A) the strike was not full
B) the striking pressure was not adjusted correctly
C) the defects could be built up struck through debris

 

I don’t think so.

PCGS MS-67 This is for "Mint State" (the grade) and "67" (the numerical designation of that grade).

Does the PCGS description mention FS Jeffersons anywhere? No.

I’ve just had a look at the second edition of the PCGS coin grading guide. In the chapter “5 elements of a coin’s grade” it says with regards to strike:

- “poorly struck coins usually grade no higher than MS62 or MS63” (p 48)
- “in grades of MS65 and higher, the coin must be well struck” (p 52)
- also the paragraph about strike designation (p. 70) doesn’t mention any differences in grading for FS and non-FS coins

 

The coin in OP doesn’t even come close to other Jefferson’s in 67 I’ve seen. That coin is a 65+/66 at BEST.

 

@micbraun
What do you mean " I don't think so" it says it right in the link to the page. It says FS jeff nickels
http://www.fsjeffersonnickels.com/gradingstandards.html

 

I think we can all agree that @Lehigh96 is the expert on Jeffersons. I wonder what he grades this coin? I know that in the past, he and I have disagreed about the importance of planchet roughness on ultra-high grade coins.

 

The first sentence literally mentions the standards “everyone used to follow” as well.

As far as superior aspects not making up for bad aspects in grading that is 100 percent not true. Superior aspects won’t turn a 64 into a 69 but if a coin would have been a 68/68+ except something on it is a 66ish then it’ll be a 67/67+. Grading is a combination of different factors and is a lot of ways a final result of the weighted averages. The only time a single thing is the sole determining factor of the numerical grade is if it’s bad enough to cause something to be a details coin.

 

I understand what you are saying and I agree with you. However I feel like the TPGs consistently disagree with this. It has been pretty clear to me that in their view a negative can be offset by a positive. At least it seems that way to me.

 

I agree that you can't excuse planchet marks. They are still imperfections in the coin. A good strike is part of the grade at any number. On the OP Ebay photo Monticello is quite mushy for a 67+.

 

I suppose that’s what we mean by “market grading.”

 

It does to me as well, but we should also ask ourselves why they do this. Is it in the hobby's best interest, or perhaps it's in their own? Personally, I bank on the latter.

 

My guess the answer is that is what the market is driving. That most people who use their services want that. Is that “better” or “worse” for the hobby I don’t know. What I do know is PCGS and the others are selling a service and they will make changes to that service if they can sell more product.

That’s not really their fault.

 

This has turned into more of an opinion style of grading, than actually what is acceptable in todays market VS yesteryears.
If what is stated above- ANA and PCGS grading standards are correct for an MS grade and FS designation. Then how did this Jefferson get an MS68 and sell for $4100?
There is an added reason it sold for the price it did.

https://coins.ha.com/itm/jefferson-...-ms68-ngc/a/1206-3498.s?hdnJumpToLot=1x=0&y=0

 

I know it's totally a side thought (and unrelated to this coin)...but what about so-called "cabinet friction." I tend to agree with what you said, marks (and I would include "rubs" as a type of mark) on a coin are marks no matter what caused them. I have seen some people (not me) argue this with the exception of "cabinet friction." How can all marks and rubs on a coin count against a grade...except rubs caused by a coin cabinet?

 

It’s because it’s what people want and it’s how everything else works in life. You don’t say someone at sports is terrible because they’re great at 4 out of 5 skills and below average in the 5th which is what’s happening with grading. If something’s a 68 in several areas and a 66 in another why should it be limited to a 66 like some seem to think?