Which 1971-D Jefferson Nickel Do You Prefer (GTG)

Which of the two 1971-D Jefferson Nickels shown below do you prefer? Please vote in the attached poll and give your opinion of the grade of each coin in the comments.

Coin #1:





Coin #2:




Thank you!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

#1 has die polish lines and slightly orange peeled #2 is orange peeled surfaces.in all honesty I perfer a 71 s no s proof
But between the two pictured above both look like nice strikes for a late die state coin.

 

The scratch in front of the forehead of #1 bothers me, but so does the rough surface of #2. But I bet it gives the second coin great luster, so it wins out for me. First: MS65, second: MS66.

 

I like #2 the most. It's has a nice different look. What was going on with the die?
I'll go with 66 on both coins.

 

This feels like the election all over again. Everyone thinks there are only two options, but I'm going to vote for a third choice: none of the above.

I suppose it depends on what you are looking for, but there are problems with both of those coins. If I were assembling a set of high-grade Jeffersons, I would know that there are 111 graded 67 5FS. Thus, it is not an uncommon coin. (even in 6FS, there are 12 graded - still enough to come to market occasionally).

The second coin I'll rule out instantly as being absolutely not FS - there is a large gash that clearly cuts across all of the steps. I don't mind the orange peel look, although its not the most attractive. The luster appears to be strong, although it is probably "coarse." Technically, this coin may reach 67, but I'd prefer it as a 66.

The first coin is a bit harder, but still easy for me to rule out. The luster on this one looks like it may be a bit dulled by the slight orange peel and die polish. The details are stronger because it is an earlier die state, but the strike is actually weaker on this one. There is enough bridging under the 3rd column that it may rule out FS here as well (better pictures or in-hand evaluation could confirm). The biggest problem for me, on this coin, is the presence of numerous tick-marks on his jaw and cheekbone. This limits the coin to 65 in opinion, although I know this is something that you disagree with me on. The TPGs also disagree with me. This coin would probably make 66 as well.

In short, I'd prefer to wait and not buy either of these. I guess it depends on the goals of your set, though.

 

This is an effect often seen on later die state coins. Basically, the surfaces of the die have eroded from striking so many coins. It is often referred to as "orange peel surfaces," for its obvious similarities.

 

I think they are both late state coins.
Coin 1- 66 a smidge earlier die state
Coin 2 -67 (possibly FS?)
Im all-in on coin #2... i like the cheek AND fields better. The steps seem better also, but there is that pesky hit. Is that a deal breaker for the FS designation (?) I have no idea
Ive never shunned a coin due to its die state. I actually prefer some of the cracked up LDS Morgans

 

Coin #1 - 65/66FS? better strike than the other coin, mostly clean fields, I’d absolutely prefer this one
Coin #2 - 66 no-FS, nice color and luster, but too many hits on the rev incl. the steps

 

To my eye neither coin is FS close yes but like horse shoes not a ringer! That said I can see a TPG giving both FS . With a mintage of 316,144,800 pcs. Those dies got a real workout. One would think a Denver coin would have a better strike than Philly, not this case Philly minted a about 2/3's less coins in 71 than Denver in most cases that is reversed.

 

I think i like number 2 better. I kinda like the orange peel surfaces. I bet the luster on that coin is pretty neat.

 

Why due to more surface area to reflect the light? Making the luster brighter.

 

1 is WAY better than 2. I don’t like that orange peel look and think those polish lines look pretty good on #1.
1 = 66 5FS.
2 = 65

 

Of the two, I think coin #1 is a better fit for your set.

 

Here is the reveal:

Coin #1:



Coin #2:

 

The cheek on #2 is definitely better and that hit on the steps is just too deep to allow the FS designation. I really thought that I would like the orange peel effect of a really LDS coin and the luster it provides, but I just don't. I find the texture of the surfaces distracting and odd, and have been looking for a suitable replacement for quite awhile. Coin #1 is the replacement.

Congrats on getting both numerical grades.

 

While I agree with your overall sentiment, I am not currently in a position to be collecting top pops for my registry set. When you get to these moderns, they rarely have eye appealing toning, and are pretty much expensive widgets in the top pop grades. At this point I am satisfied with collecting coins that have decent luster, good strikes, and full steps, even if they don't have the cleanest surfaces.

Also, congrats on getting the numerical grades.

 

Yep, and I have already updated my registry set.

 

Orange peel surfaces at first at a distance isn't a bad look, but will agree the closer you look the effect looses something . Perhasp it not a natural look which at first draws us in,then as we examine the specimen closer ,and for a longer peroid of time it looses all the effects that first drew us to the coin.
My question as since this is not in my wheelhouse what causes this?
Thinking about it my best guess would be medal flow or platchet medal.
As if the medal was being pushed or pulled at a temperature not hot enough to allow the medal to move smoothly. Again only speculation on my part as to cause.
I've seen this effect more so on nickels ,but have seen it on other series as well.
It maybe because the hardness and thickness of a nickel that it is more prevalent.

 

Yeah pretty much. Light should be reflecting off in all sorts of directions. I would assume, without seeing the coin in hand, that it is very "frosty".

 

Ive seen this effect on clad Kennedies, Jefferson Nickels and a few type 1 Buffaloes.
I thought i understood what caused it but i believe there is more than one answer to this question.
I just read a letter from the US Mint correspondence to Ken Potter.
The improper seperation of dies (after annealing) during quenching. If a number of dies are being quenched at the same time, and they are spaced too close together, they would cool too slow. Especially the dies in the middle, cool off too slow, so they wouldnt properly harden.
In short-
This is caused by an improperly quenched die resulting in an improperly hardened die. Which results in premature die fatigue.

Now thats just 1 explanation, im sure improper annealing temperature could also produce similiar results. I know someone who is good at explaining this sort of thing-
@GDJMSP
Forgive me Lehigh, i just summonsed up your arch nemesis