Which 1956-D Jefferson Nickel do you prefer?

Well, you have defined my main problem with coin #1 and when you see the assigned grade you will really understand.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I love coin #2.

 

I do like the luster and strike on #1, but #2's strike isn't that far off (from the pictures anyway) and has less noticeable contacts. Plus, that is the toning I'm more a sucker for, as opposed to "monster" coins. Gentle with good color variation. I'll go with #2.

I concur with @CamaroDMD, I think they both pull a MS66.

 

Number 2 works for me! #1 has a couple of big marks on Jeff's mug. The toning is a nice bonus on 2. MS 66+ on 2.

 

I like number 2 better.

I think #1 is a 66 for luster and strike.

I think #2 is a 65 and being punished for strike weakness and what may be some muted luster due to the toning which happens to be fantastic.

 

Hopefully they didn't grade this above gem. That contact is very focal for a small coin.

 

I think this is the key here. Is #1 a high end strike when compared to the best of the series...no. But, it's a high end strike for a 56-D.

It would be like comparing a 1880-S and 1892-O Morgan Dollar. A nicely struck 92-O is very different than a nicely struck 80-S.

 

Ok, so here is the problem. Coin #1 is graded MS67. Now before everyone freaks out, yes the surfaces are not MS67 quality, they are closer to MS65-66, but the luster and strike are so good for a 1956-D, that the coin was market graded to MS67.




Those of you who know me well and have seen my posts on this forum over the last 12 years know that I absolutely love rainbow toned coins. Having said that, something about coin #2 has always rubbed me the wrong way. I know that I should just accept that this is typical Dansco toning and be happy with the only MS66* in existence for this date/mm, but the thought that something is hinky about the toning on this coin simply won't leave my mind. I had the same feeling about my 1963 MS67* and I ended up selling that coin earlier this year.




My problem is that if I move on from coin #2, will the MS65-66 surfaces of coin #1 linger in my mind in the same manner that the toning of coin #2 has? I still have not voted in my own poll, and so I can't see the results which I imagine are extremely tight. It would stand to reason that this forum may be just as divided on these two coins as I am in my own mind.

Maybe if we just continue to talk about these two coins, somebody will make a comment that resonates with me so that I can break the tie in my own head.

 

@Lehigh96, what about the toning on coin #2 concerns you? It looks like normal album toning to me. My experience has been this is totally acceptable. You are the expert in toned Jeffs...what concerns you here?

Is this one of those gut feelings you just can't explain?

 

The toning on the reverse is what bothers me. First, toning of this magnitude on nickels is extremely rare and the later the dates get, the more rare it is to find these coins with rainbow toning. But that alone is not my problem with the coin. As you pointed out, it is hard to explain, but something just doesn't sit right with me.



The coin has what I refer to as oil slick toning on the reverse. Rather than these colors presenting in the way that most toning does, even the toning on the obverse of the coin, the reverse toning presents as an iridescence that makes the toning appear questionable. As I stated earlier, this isn't the first coin I have seen this type of toning, and authentic or not, I don't like it. Here is the reverse of the 1963 MS67* that I sold earlier this year.





Another explanation is that I'm just crazy as a loon!

 

So, two thoughts. If these coins were mine and I was going to keep one...I would keep the toner. No question there...I just like it better. But, these coins are not mine so what I would do doesn't matter.

Here is what I would say...and what I have learned the hard way (and @Lehigh96, you know this too). If you keep a coin in your collection that bothers you in some way...you will always see that flaw. Every time you look at the coin, you will get the feeling in your stomach that something isn't right and it will bother you...it won't matter how rare it is or how high the grade is.

So, if coin #1 doesn't do that and coin #2 does...then the answer is simple. Keep coin #1 and sell coin #2. That's the answer...and only you can make that decision.

 

@Lehigh96 I do see what you mean about the reverse of the toned example. The obverse on that one is much better.
Why not list both coins for sale (at prices you are comfortable with) and see which sells first? Maybe even sell both and keep searching for something you do like.

 

The problem is that they both have a quality that bothers me. Coin #1 is overgraded, even though I understand why it is graded the way that it is, and Coin #2 just doesn't sit right with me, never has.

At this point, if I am going to keep one, the relevant question seems to be: do I want an overgraded coin, or a coin that only I have a problem with as everyone else sees as perfectly market acceptable toning. The answer to that question would be coin #2.

You are the first person to suggest this, and I have thought about doing exactly this. I have a raw 1956-D that competes with these coins, unfortunately it is quite clearly AT IMO.



Maybe I sell both coin #1 and coin #2, dip the coin above and hope it grades MS67.

 

I recall you had a group of coins where some looked closer to AT but others looked closer to MA (based on comparable ones being graded) where I suggested it was worth sending to PCGS. I believe this one we agreed wasn't worth the try but I've seen some odd things slip by. It does look to have the surfaces of a 66-67 but I'm not sure if dipping would be my choice (I somewhat like it as-is).

 

IF you decide to keep one...my suggestion is to keep the COIN that doesn't bother you. It seems to me that issue you have with coin #1 is the slab shows a grade you think is too high...but the coin itself has nothing wrong with it. However, coin #2 is the opposite. The slab is good but the coin bothers you. I think that coin #2 is going to be an issue for you because of that. Again, I wouldn't keep something in my collection that gives me a sinking feeling when I look at it. It sounds like that is coin #2.

 

This is from that group, are you suggesting that I send this to PCGS "as is"?

 

Yeah, they both give me that feeling, so wouldn't it be prudent to stick with the coin that everyone is likes? I think it is universal that Coin #1 is overgraded. Coin #2 is getting rave reviews from the people in this thread.

 

I'm not sure. On one hand, I like the look better as-is vs. what I imagine it would look like dipped. On the other hand, if dipped properly, it would have a better chance of getting graded (although I'm also not sure if a "proper dip" would even work in this case-I've never tried so can't say from experience).

 

Maybe...but it's your collection. Ultimately, only your opinion matters.

Let me ask you this...you say both give you that same feeling? But...is coin #1 JUST because of the slab (would you feel that way if it was in a MS66 slab)? That's how it feels to me based on your posts (maybe I have misread them).

I feel like the TPG is causing you the angst for coin 1 and the coin is causing the problem for coin 2. Is that not accurate?

In those situations, I personally side with the coin and would keep coin #1.

 

I feel like the TPG is causing my angst for coin 1 and my own head is causing me angst for coin 2. Not one person in this thread has made any objection at all about the originality of the toning, and I feel like I should just be able to get over my paranoia about it.

I think I am going to keep coin #2, and keep my eye out for an upgrade in the future, which is what coin #1 was ultimately supposed to be. The search shall continue.