Posting Jefferson nickels in order by date

1990-S Proof

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

90S Got this one from @Paddy54
Thanks.

 

1991-P

At first glance this looks like random pocket change. It seems to have thousands of hits, but after a close look at the photo, there are very few contact marks I see. I think the appearance is due not only to the large number of planchet flaws, but to the severe die wear everywhere and the weak lettering in LIBERTY.

Here is a closer look at these erosion lines at the left. Each strike of the dies forces metal from the edges of the blank towards the middle where there is a large void that must be filled to form the face. How many strikes does it take to create these huge furrows?

The face is really poorly struck on a planchet that must have been totally covered with dings and dents. I will discuss this further below this picture.
​

Here is an overview and a detail crop of an unstruck planchet. (It's in a 2x2 so there's reflection off the plastic.) These show what the die has to start with before it hits the blank. If the hard nickel cannot be forced up fully into every recess of the die, then these marks remain on the coin, although somewhat flattened and distorted due to the metal flow. In the image above, Jefferson's face is a roadmap of lines and marks that were not hammered out of the raw metal.


Detail of the unstruck planchet - 100% crop of my camera's original image. It's at the same scale as the crop of the obverse shown above.

 

That's deteriorated dies for sure, I would also suspect that the strike was weak. In 91' according to the red book, states that the hair details were strengthened.
This is also the first year that 6 full steps are standard. Those days of searching for FS nickels are over.
Nice Photos of the deterioration. Is the second of Jefferson's cheek?

 

It's hard to see any strengthening of the hair details on this specimen. Maybe someone has some photos that show how it was improved.

The coin also does not show full steps, although the last few days has shown nickels of much better quality than this. I just wonder how the original collector of this set managed to get such a dog for this issue. A lot of coins were not filled in for the '90s in this set. Maybe he built the set mostly in the 80s and was losing interest in the 90s. And maybe this coin really was pocket change that he popped into the empty hole.

The five illustrations are:

1. A full-range color image reduced to about 1/3 original size at 1600x800 pixels
2. A .gif animation limited to 256 unique colors at 800x1600 pixels
3. Full-resolution crop of the original photo showing the legend WE and detail of Jefferson's face
4. A full-range color image of a blank planchet reduced to 1600x800 - so it matches up with the first image in the post
5. A full-resolution crop of the original planchet photo. It matches the scale of image #3 so the size and frequency of the dings before the strike can be compared to the coin after it was struck.

 

Hey, maybe he thought that putting in one dog would make the others look better!

 

I was putting away the 2x2 that holds the planchet, when I discovered I have another 1991-P. Apparently I meant to replace the one above but never got around to taking any pictures. We may end up with another post for 1991-P later today!

 

1991-P
This is the replacement for the coin shown in the prior post.

Apparently this is just what I have done. I showed the dog, now let me show a nicer one.

 

This leads me to the weak strike, I researched some auctions but was unable to get the changes in the hair details. Might be an area of study. I also have noticed that these planchets were terrible. And what is called a 66 or even a plus is littered with left over planchet marks.
I wonder what @Lehigh96 says about this.
I have yet to find an example from 91 P,D or S that I like.

 

That's a much nicer example Ron. I wonder if the hair details had just gotten worn over the years from the hubbing of working dies.

 

1991-D
From this point until 2011, the Dansco was roughly half filled and half empty. The only 1991 nickel in the set was the poorly struck 1991-P shown in post #383.

Earlier in this thread we discussed the vast price disparity between raw and graded examples of high-end business strikes. (While Proofs, oddly, are always selling for less than the cost of getting them graded.)

Grading coins is a bit of a gamble. If you win and get a coin graded MS67, you enter a rarefied region of top populations. If you can find a registry collector who wants it, then you have a $100-200 coin, according to the auction records. If you miss the grade, you have a nice piece of plastic with a nickel in it.

On the other end of the scale you have dealers who sell these raw and often cut out from mint sets as "Original Mint Cello". This is more of a bulk commodity market barely above the level of pocket change.

Yesterday's replacement 1991-P was an online purchase for $1.40, the one posted here is $1.45, and tomorrow's proof was $2.77. Taking a look at the price charts, a 5FS at MS66 is the top of the price guide and is $170. 1991-D at MS66 6FS is $170. If these were graded MS67 they would be worthy of a high-end auction house.

Here's what you get when you cut a random coin out of its mint set cellophane.

 

Add full steps to some of the early 1950's Jefferson's and you're looking at $1000+.

 

I went out yesterday to look for some 91' that I could study the hair details.
Found a couple that were decently struck.
Both seems to have slightly different give away details.
The changes are most notable around the ear, although it was done through out.
91D I also didn't find a problem with the steps all were at least 5 steps but the search still ended with out finding ones with out planchet problems or bag marks crossing them.
91P
The steps on the P are real wavy looking. I think though that it is just die deterioration. The rest of the surfaces show a later die state with some evident die polishing.

 

1991-S Proof

 

I appreciate your research and analysis, and that you shared it with us.

All three 1991-P coins seem dramatically different. I am left to wonder whether the details were strengthened mid-year or whether the change was made exactly at the changeover from 90 to 91.

The first one I showed was poorly struck, I agree, but is that enough to account for the terrible lack of detail around the ear? Or was this one of the last worn-out dies before the stronger dies were phased in to replace them?

Could there be “weak” and “strong” varieties just waiting for the right discovery coins?

 

It's going to take a lot more study to tell anything to that extent. The mintage numbers for 91 P/D were over 600 mil each. You would like to think it is easy to find a nice looking Jeff in this year, because of what is written in the Red Book. But I think the biggest battle is to find coins with nice luster, and less planchet marks/Bag marks.
We also have to consider that a lot of modern coinage was spent and heavily used.
The study and search will go on at least until I find a descent example.
The last two cost me 75 cents.
I am using NGC only for the pop. I just don't trust PCGS definition of FS.
Out of 127 91P Jeffs graded at NGC in Mint State.
69 in 5FS
36 in 6FS
21 in MS
And believe it or not 1 in MSPL graded 66.
One 6FS has made it to auction and that was a teletrade in 2011 for 250$
These I am sure have traded in the market but I imagine for lofty prices.
If this is any proof I would say they are a little scarcer than what is written.

 

Maybe or maybe not. Since it is a modern issue with many minted one wouldn't expect the TPG population reports to be an accurate barometer as to scarcity.

 

@wxcoin I agree more study and searching is definitely going to be required.
If PCGS is used there are 198 in FS. But like I said before some of there FS designations are questionable at best.
And it would take a 66+ or a 67 to truly make money off of them.
The problem I see with these is how are they graded, with so many residual planchet marks, they would be easy to overlook thinking they are junk.
I would really like to see that MSPL.

 

I don’t have the MSPL for you, but here’s a crude shot of my better 91-P which is very reflective indeed.

I just put a post-it next to it, not having any better technique at the moment. If I knew how the TPGs measure this it could be fun to recreate at home.

 

1992-P




Yesterday we talked about improved hair details. This coin really shows them strongly - to my thinking even more than 1991. Here it is compared to the poorly struck 1991-P.


And here it is compared to the better 1991-P.