Posting Jefferson nickels in order by date

I would really like to see it in hand. Even in your photos there seems to be a slight Haloing around the devices. I am starting to see that it is possibly a die characteristic. I started a thread with two coins from Coin facts a 67FS and a 66FS.
wondering the reason.
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/is-this-just-the-photos.329572/
You have the coin in hand, does it look like the coin has been polished? Or is it just a slight loss of luster from an early die?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I consider this coin to be proof-like. This is part of an iPhone photo I just shot. Sorry the bottom was cut off; the phone was waving all over the place as I was adjusting the coin with one hand while aiming the phone with the other.



I can see a bit more roughness under the letters than in the fields. The photo demonstrates the reflection is sharp from rim to rim, and everything is consistently finished everywhere.

I would try for better photos, but I just got my camera set up for a series of proof dimes and it was a pain to get the lights just right. However I can do a full-size shot of any part of the coin it that will help.

 

No worries If there is no apparent toning on the coin. I am thinking it is the technique used to photo the coin. Whether it is not enough light or the coin is just so reflective that it is hard to fully capture the luster.

 

1984-D

 

That coin is very well struck, if it only had cleaner surfaces.

 

I have to agree, sadly, but I completely agree.

On the other hand, let's focus on the "well struck" part of your comment. The reverse, in particular, shows details that match up well with this 1951 proof. The walls of Monticello are supposed to show the texture, which I assume represents stucco or plaster on the walls. In some areas the 1984-D reverse even surpasses this early proof (for example, the left side of the porch and the railings around the roof).


I may repost this reverse again to compare to the intentional cameo proofs that were produced for the 80's. The cameo effect comes at the expense of fine detail. For me, the cameo surfaces are nowhere near as appealing as the reverse shown here.

 

Ran across this photo tonight from when me and my wife visited Monticello. Highly recommend it for anybody who has not had the opportunity to experience it. This is from 2016 and I remember having to wait what felt like hours to get a photo without any other people in the frame.

 

1984-S Proof
@kSigSteve - terrific photo for us collectors. There's nothing quite like seeing what the original model is like. For the record, since the walls are brick, the coin below with smooth walls is probably more realistic than the proof above (post #346) with textured ones.

I commented on the loss of detail in these proofs. I have to retract that. The mint has actually achieved a balance between capturing fine details and frosting the devices. I do miss the subtle texturing of the walls, though, even if it's not quite true to the original building.

 

1985-P

 

1985-D

 

1985-P:



1985-D:

 

1985-S Proof

 

1986-P

 

I will try to get a photo of mine today.

 

1986-D

 

I found these mirrored almost prooflike coins hard to photo till I caught what it looked like in the NE quadrant of the viewing lens. It actually gives a good description of the surface. They are a beast to photo.
86P is 5 full steps. The planchet void does not completely break the 5th step The 86D has slight more reflection than the P obverse, but has more contact and Planchet defects.

 

1986-S Proof

I like the effect you achieved on the reverse of the 1986-D. It looks like a pool of mercury.

 

1987-P

 

1987-D

 

1987-S Proof