Posting Jefferson nickels in order by date

@Lehigh96 I am not sure which I would choose having them in hand. I am leaning towards the Third. The smooth satiny luster and strong strike get my vote.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Here are mine. Bad pic but coins have nice tone that does not show. Question is should I take them out of this holder and individually put in 2x2's

 

Yesterday I received a 2009-D to fill in the last empty slot in the Dansco. While putting it away, I saw for the first time a nickel jammed between the pages in the binding. Turned out to be a 1969-S Proof. Fun!

1951-D

 

The features have become very soft and rounded on this strike, particularly when compared to the proof in post #140. The shoulder is particularly rough where it was not completely hammered into the die.

1951-S




Edit: I have a second proof for comparison.

 

The black background you have in this display is good for emphasizing the golden coloring. I have no idea if the insert is chemically inert. If it is, you might try disassembling the holder and cleaning the surfaces with headlight polish to remove the hairline scratches. Be careful if these are soft screws - they are easy to gouge if the screwdriver doesn't fit perfectly.

I keep my extras in plastic 2x2's with black foam inserts, in a tray (from Lighthouse; I get them online from Whitman Coin). They look too nice to use plain old paper 2x2's.

If you trust the materials, I think the classic holder is kind of cool in itself. I'm keeping the majority of mine in the Dansco they came in - sort of a tip of the hat to the collector who built the set originally.

 

I think we missed the 1951-P, so I will post all three from 1951 in this post.

1951-P:




1951-D:




1951-S:




Anyone who has collected Jefferson Nickels would know how hard it is to find a stunning rainbow toned high grade 1951-S with a full strike and luster. I consider this coin to be one of the highlights of my entire collection and would put it up against any other 51-S in the world.

 

Thanks for the advice

 

There's one in post #140!

1952

 

That's quite the collection you P/U their Sir

 

1952-D
There may be a couple of small dings on the obverse, but the face, hair, and Monticello are remarkably well detailed.





The ding at the top of the head is a contact mark, but the one on the jaw was in the planchet. The top one has a sharp contour that shows it was banged by the edge of another coin. The mark on the jaw is partially closed up by striking. As always, viewing coins at this magnification shows details that you barely notice in hand.

 

1952-S




The Dansco album that holds these nickels is titled "Jefferson Nickels including proof-only issues". This means they don't provide any slots for the proofs from 1938-1942 or 1950-1970 (or the 65-67 SMS's). Starting in 1971 San Francisco produced only proofs, and these are what are represented in the album.

This poses a conundrum for the collector. There is only one slot for the year and mintmark. There just isn't a place to put proofs or Special Mint Set coins. You have to choose whether the set contains business strikes, or to take a "best possible coin" approach and put in proofs - but not represent the business strikes at all. Although the proofs are beautiful, it's more challenging and satisfying to track down a good business strike.

The same issue, then, applies to this thread. I've been trying to represent the original collection that mixed in some post-1960 proofs instead of business strikes. However, I have replaced those and now have the proofs separate. So I will throw in a proof from time to time at random just so they can be shown.

Here, for example, is the 1952 proof. It's a PF68 in an NGC slab, which makes it harder to photograph. Now I have to figure out where to post the 38-42 and 1950 proofs...

1952 Proof

 

1952-P: The Destiny Nickel (Read story linked below in my registry set)

The Atlantic City Set of Jefferson Nickels 1952-P
​

1952-D: This is a W designation coin that I am looking to upgrade




1952-S: One of my first additions, bought this coin over a decade ago.

 

Love the story, @Lehigh96 ! That catastrophe ended in your favor!

 

But the story ended poorly for the flipper who bought high and sold $1000 lower!

 

1953




And even though the Dansco has no place to put it, here's this year's proof.

1953 Proof

 

1953-D

 

Looks like an RPM.

 

The moving photo doesn't show the round of the D to the left of the upright. I believe it is only die deterioration.

 

I’ll take a better picture but this can intrigue us for now. This is a 100% crop of the original, where the coin fills the frame. I can get closer and focus better.


Edit: Further photography has revealed no unusual features of the mint mark. It was just a trick of the light.

 

1953-S
This example has a lot of luster, but I imagine that is due to worn dies that gave the fields a satiny appearance. The animation shows off the heavy erosion lines all over the reverse. They are really apparent in four areas over Monticello, at the 10:00, 11:00, 1:00, and 2:00 positions. The areas just over each side of the dome are particularly grainy.