Once again - smacked by PCGS

Che_Grapes

I’m a tad bit disappointed on this grade from a brand new arrival from PCGS - I’m starting to take this personal!! This easily a 68! Not a blemish in sight!
But I know you experts are fixin to learn me: so let it rip!

braddick

Looks PR66 from here.

FranklinHalfAddict

What does “fixin to learn me” mean?

Che_Grapes

@FranklinHalfAddict said:
What does “fixin to learn me” mean?

Lol / you ain’t from the south are you?

Smudge

Proofs are held to a very high standard.

oih82w8

Well...you asked for their opinion...you got it.

FlyingAl

Well, let's see. From the pictures, this is my best guess.

There are hairlines that aren't visible and the marks on Jefferson's forehead and cheek held it back. This is in addition to dies that had a lot of detail polished off, and the classic haze common to proofs of this era.

Here's an example of hairlines on a PR64 1940 quarter:

And a quick phone picture I took that makes it look PR68.

Hairlines only show up under certain lighting conditions at certain angles. Take the coin and slowly swirl it under light and watch for those scratches to pop up. Remember, a 68 has none, but a 66 will have multiple. 68s for this era are very hard to obtain and very few have full details. The packaging was horrible, and many have spots, haze, and excessive hairlines.

Aspie_Rocco

The lower jaw below the ear and the base of the bust both look not fully struck, at least from the photos. 1940 and 41 can be a little tougher to find well struck clean areas around the base of bust and sometimes jaw.

FlyingAl

@Aspie_Rocco said:
The lower jaw below the ear and the base of the bust both look not fully struck, at least from the photos. 1940 and 41 can be a little tougher to find well struck clean areas around the base of bust and sometimes jaw.

Before we get more comments regarding a weak strike: these proofs are almost never seen weakly struck. I mean, I've never seen one. All of the "weak strikes" are actually caused by the mint over polishing the dies, and the detail was eroded. This was caused by either intention or accident, depending on the year. I had a thread about this recently.

As the dies were repolished and put back into service, the detail became worse and worse. An example is the 1940 I posted above. It has the ribbon of Washington's hair nearly polished off, and yet the high points of the design are completely and fully struck, where the die was not polished during either the initial polish or repolish. So it's not a weak strike, but overpolished dies.

amwldcoin

Looks pretty blah in the pictures and forgive me, a gift as a 66.

Now I'll run and hide!

jesbroken

Are these areas visually apparent with eyes only, or are they anomalies from light wash or some other camera issue? If visible with only the eye, then I would understand holding them back.
Jim

Che_Grapes

I love it - the expertise on this site is incredible.

I went from thinking I got a bad grade to realizing I actually earned it....!!

Aspie_Rocco

@FlyingAl said:

@Aspie_Rocco said:
The lower jaw below the ear and the base of the bust both look not fully struck, at least from the photos. 1940 and 41 can be a little tougher to find well struck clean areas around the base of bust and sometimes jaw.

Before we get more comments regarding a weak strike: these proofs are almost never seen weakly struck. I mean, I've never seen one. All of the "weak strikes" are actually caused by the mint over polishing the dies, and the detail was eroded. This was caused by either intention or accident, depending on the year. I had a thread about this recently.

As the dies were repolished and put back into service, the detail became worse and worse. An example is the 1940 I posted above. It has the ribbon of Washington's hair nearly polished off, and yet the high points of the design are completely and fully struck, where the die was not polished during either the initial polish or repolish. So it's not a weak strike, but overpolished dies.

I never said it was a “weak strike” even in your quote I referred to those specific areas as being not fully struck.
For whatever reason be it an over polished die or the metal not filling the problem areas in the striking process. I have not noticed obvious die polish lines in other areas of coins like this, other than the base of bust where those lines appear.

In the PR66 the area below the ear on the jaw looks rough along the the high point of the cheek and more like business strike surface areas isolated there. That seems like a not fully struck area on an otherwise decent proof strike.

A “weak strike” would be more shallow appearance overall. Or maybe I am splitting hairs over semantics? 🤷‍♂️

davewesen

I was going to blow up the TruView to see what kept from higher but forgot they show up a month after the coins. A PR66 is still good grade for early stuff.

DollarAfterDollar

A proof 68 coin would have zero scratches, ticks and the like, in addition the fields would be watery smooth, so much so that the luster would be almost impossible to see because it's so consistent.

Coinscratch

Here’s what a 68 sounds like.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DAqblAXF7XU

FlyingAl

@Aspie_Rocco said:

@FlyingAl said:

@Aspie_Rocco said:
The lower jaw below the ear and the base of the bust both look not fully struck, at least from the photos. 1940 and 41 can be a little tougher to find well struck clean areas around the base of bust and sometimes jaw.

Before we get more comments regarding a weak strike: these proofs are almost never seen weakly struck. I mean, I've never seen one. All of the "weak strikes" are actually caused by the mint over polishing the dies, and the detail was eroded. This was caused by either intention or accident, depending on the year. I had a thread about this recently.

As the dies were repolished and put back into service, the detail became worse and worse. An example is the 1940 I posted above. It has the ribbon of Washington's hair nearly polished off, and yet the high points of the design are completely and fully struck, where the die was not polished during either the initial polish or repolish. So it's not a weak strike, but overpolished dies.

I never said it was a “weak strike” even in your quote I referred to those specific areas as being not fully struck.
For whatever reason be it an over polished die or the metal not filling the problem areas in the striking process. I have not noticed obvious die polish lines in other areas of coins like this, other than the base of bust where those lines appear.

In the PR66 the area below the ear on the jaw looks rough along the the high point of the cheek and more like business strike surface areas isolated there. That seems like a not fully struck area on an otherwise decent proof strike.

A “weak strike” would be more shallow appearance overall. Or maybe I am splitting hairs over semantics? 🤷‍♂️

I inferred from both your note of a lack of a full strike and mentions of coins not being well struck that you were referencing a weak strike. At least, when I think of weak strike, a coin that lacks a full strike comes to mind. One could also say that not fully struck = weak strike.

These coins will also not bear die polish lines as the goal was to use fine enough polish rouge to avoid them. As such the detail missing shows no evidence fo being eroded by polishing. If they did appear, the field would not be mirrored but rather full of die polish lines and nothing else. The angle of the picture also hides the high points on the cheek to see if it shows a weak strike. I don't see any evidence of such.

This is a very misunderstood part of 1936-42 proofs, which is why I'm going to great lengths to try and make this clear. It's nothing against you, @Aspie_Rocco, I just want to prevent from people getting the wrong idea. Hopefully you can understand .

jdimmick

I dont see it any where near a 68, again with proofs really need to see in hand, but no where close IMO

Crypto

Luster is important too for the higher range of grades. It needs pop

DelawareDoons

Luster, Buster. Need that flash to get that cash. If it aint shiny, it gets a whuppin on the heinie.

johnny9434

@Che_Grapes said:

@FranklinHalfAddict said:
What does “fixin to learn me” mean?

Lol / you ain’t from the south are you?

Bless my bourbon I believe it is

lilolme

@Che_Grapes
I don't know these at all. Looking at TV for 1940 Rev 40 there appears to be some of the same things going on that are being pointed out on yours and they grade 68, 67+. Looking at the base (6 o/c) and the jaw. The jaw to me appears to be where the planchet did not fully fill the die and left the 'pebbly' look of it. Might be something similar at the the base but not one I am familiar with. Your pic does give it some local haze look to it and I bet there are other reasons.
68

68

67+

67+

And the 68 Coinscratch posted above is similar in jaw and some at base.

Cameonut

I don't give guesses on grades from one photo only.
How about a photo of the reverse?

MFeld

While such thread titles garner attention, your last couple of them appear to have been off base.

Coinscratch

@lilolme said:
@Che_Grapes

And the 68 Coinscratch posted above is similar in jaw and some at base.

That image came from CoinFacts and sure if you enlarge it you’re going to see plenty of minor hits. But the strike, luster, and even Toning gives it that wow factor, you have to step back you cannot grade eye appeal through a Loupe.

telephoto1

Funny how when folks send it in themselves they're always undergrades but when someone else has them they're either barely there, or overgrades...

ChrisH821

In my experience getting a PR67 or higher on early proof Jeffersons is pretty tough, as it should be.

numisma

@telephoto1 said:
Funny how when folks send it in themselves they're always undergrades but when someone else has them they're either barely there, or overgrades...

.
.
Ownership adds 5 points in the world of numismatics.

lilolme

@Coinscratch said:

@lilolme said:
@Che_Grapes

And the 68 Coinscratch posted above is similar in jaw and some at base.

That image came from CoinFacts and sure if you enlarge it you’re going to see plenty of minor hits. But the strike, luster, and even Toning gives it that wow factor, you have to step back you cannot grade eye appeal through a Loupe.

Hey I was not questioning the grade of the 68, 67+ posted. I was noting that some of the stuff being questioned on the OP coin (with the not the best photo) are also present on the higher graded ones. Therefore, would imply that these might not be the issue for the OP grade.

So on the jaw:
"The jaw to me appears to be where the planchet did not fully fill the die and left the 'pebbly' look of it."

There may be some contact marks also but I was noting that it appears there was not enough pressure or metal flow or whatever it would take to press out the rough surface of the planchet. It shows on the one you posted and the last one I posted best. This is not something the graders would miss. I guess one could say it is part of the coin. This can be found on multiple coins here and other series.

I am still wondering about the vertical lines at the base. But again not something the graders would miss so it is in the minting somewhere and on multiple coins. Part of the coin.

Again I was not intending to question any grades here. Just offering up a comparison to the OP.

Maywood

This easily a 68! Not a blemish in sight!

The overall "cleanness" of a coin is only one aspect of a grade. As others have pointed out, and similar to at least one other thread of yours, you don't seem to take into account the strike and amount of detail present. This Jefferson is clearly weak and that's just the obverse, if the reverse is as weakly struck it's probably missing detail in the step area nad center of the building.

FlyingAl

@Maywood said:
This easily a 68! Not a blemish in sight!

The overall "cleanness" of a coin is only one aspect of a grade. As others have pointed out, and similar to at least one other thread of yours, you don't seem to take into account the strike and amount of detail present. This Jefferson is clearly weak and that's just the obverse, if the reverse is as weakly struck it's probably missing detail in the step area nad center of the building.

Once again, the detail remaining does not play a part in the grade of these proofs. Lack of detail is due to over polished dies, and is therefore considered an as struck feature that does not affect grade.

Whether or not this needs to change is up for debate, but as of now remaining level of detail does not affect the grade of a proof 1936-42.

It seems this is a major misconception about these proofs.

Coinscratch

@lilolme said:

@Coinscratch said:

@lilolme said:
@Che_Grapes

And the 68 Coinscratch posted above is similar in jaw and some at base.

That image came from CoinFacts and sure if you enlarge it you’re going to see plenty of minor hits. But the strike, luster, and even Toning gives it that wow factor, you have to step back you cannot grade eye appeal through a Loupe.

Hey I was not questioning the grade of the 68, 67+ posted. I was noting that some of the stuff being questioned on the OP coin (with the not the best photo) are also present on the higher graded ones. Therefore, would imply that these might not be the issue for the OP grade.

So on the jaw:
"The jaw to me appears to be where the planchet did not fully fill the die and left the 'pebbly' look of it."

There may be some contact marks also but I was noting that it appears there was not enough pressure or metal flow or whatever it would take to press out the rough surface of the planchet. It shows on the one you posted and the last one I posted best. This is not something the graders would miss. I guess one could say it is part of the coin. This can be found on multiple coins here and other series.

I am still wondering about the vertical lines at the base. But again not something the graders would miss so it is in the minting somewhere and on multiple coins. Part of the coin.

Again I was not intending to question any grades here. Just offering up a comparison to the OP.

My comment was more intended for the OP, so don't HEY me

Maywood

Once again, the detail remaining does not play a part in the grade of these proofs. Lack of detail is due to over polished dies, and is therefore considered an as struck feature that does not affect grade.

That might sound good, but how is a grader expected to know that a coin was struck from polished dies which removed detail or just from a weak strike?? My experience with Proofs from this era and from specializing in Jefferson Nickels tells me that there really isn't a way to know and that the "strike" is a well-considered aspect of a coin's overall grade. These graders see way more coins and are more well acquainted with the nuances of strike than either of us, I will trust their judgement over that of what Ms. Sperber was fond of calling "chat-room weenies" which would be both of us.

Maywood

Once again, the detail remaining does not play a part in the grade of these proofs.

There is at least one former grader, albeit from NGC, that has responded to this thread. Perhaps he will choose to opine on the above statement.

FlyingAl

@Maywood, it’s easy to tell if the coin is well struck by if the high points are fully stuck. See my post earlier in this thread.

It does also happen to be the grader’s jobs to tell the difference. My being on a chat board has no effect on my knowledge either.

It’s common knowledge for specialists of these proofs to know that very few (I’d wager a tenth of a percent) of these proofs have any strike weakness. Any missing detail is often due to over polish and this can be shown by the missing detail having mirrored surfaces underneath like the fields. Again, please refer to my earlier post where the first image I posted shows this. If the high points of the coin are fully struck, then the low points certainly are as well, as these proofs illustrate. The lack of detail must therefore be caused by over polishing the dies, and the proofs show this.

I’m not saying the grade is wrong, I’m saying the coin is not weakly struck.

FlyingAl

@Maywood said:
Once again, the detail remaining does not play a part in the grade of these proofs.

There is at least one former grader, albeit from NGC, that has responded to this thread. Perhaps he will choose to opine on the above statement.

Sure, perhaps he will comment. In the meantime, here’s a graded PR68 with large amounts of missing detail.

Maywood

My last comment on this matter: the OP coins displays obverse strike weakness in the places it should be expected to be seen, at the jawline and throat area. If the reverse could be seen I'd expect the bottom of the steps to be weak and unstruck with soft detail around the windows of the building. Those are strike issues and not die polish issues.

Have a nice day and happy collecting.

BryceM

We see so many threads like this it's sort of like a broken record. There's no reason to "take it personal."

Expert, noun:

a person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area.

I see lots of people who are convinced they have hip arthritis. Their exams and X-rays don't support this conclusion, but often nothing I say will convince them. They sometimes persist in trying to convince me. When that happens I just politely suggest they seek another opinion. I am not an expert coin grader - not even close. I am an expert in my professional field, and perhaps in one or two other limited areas, but that's it. There's an electrician doing work at my house right now. Pretty much I'm going to go with what he says when it comes to wiring.

If you ask an expert grader for their opinion and you don't agree....... well, start a thread about it, I guess.

Che_Grapes

Herewith the reverse:

Coinscratch

@FlyingAl said:

@Maywood said:
Once again, the detail remaining does not play a part in the grade of these proofs.

There is at least one former grader, albeit from NGC, that has responded to this thread. Perhaps he will choose to opine on the above statement.

Sure, perhaps he will comment. In the meantime, here’s a graded PR68 with large amounts of missing detail.

That’s a great looking coin. Weak strike or over polished dies either way it has Great Luster and surface preservation :-) this is where it gets kind of confusing for me because the grading rules clearly read that a coin should have the details that were intended.
Don’t know if that rule differs for proofs but I always just assumed that in a case like this the other grading factors we’re just so good that it overruled the strike part of it.
And in this case if the coin did have a complete strike that maybe it would have gone 68+ or nine.
Now I’m confused 😐

BAJJERFAN

@FranklinHalfAddict said:
What does “fixin to learn me” mean?

Ready to teach him I'd say.

FlyingAl

@Coinscratch

The coin actually DOES have a full strike. Note how Washington's hair in the center of the coin and the eagle's breast feathers are clearly struck. These are the high points that are the last to fill the dies and are only present on fully struck coins.

The missing detail is due to an over polished die. Perhaps I should start a thread on this...

The grading rules still technically apply since the coin is fully struck, just not fully detailed.

Coinscratch

Okay thanks that makes sense to me now. Start a thread on this when you get a chance a lot of us will benefit.

Added: Now I need to go back through all of my saved coins and reevaluate. Especially the ones that were on the fence, that were good enough to save.

bagofnickels

@FlyingAl said:
@Coinscratch

The coin actually DOES have a full strike. Note how Washington's hair in the center of the coin and the eagle's breast feathers are clearly struck. These are the high points that are the last to fill the dies and are only present on fully struck coins.

The missing detail is due to an over polished die. Perhaps I should start a thread on this...

The grading rules still technically apply since the coin is fully struck, just not fully detailed.

This was a very helpful comment for me. Thanks.

ChrisH821

Detail missing in low areas - overpolished die (Think 37-D 3 leg Buff)
Detail missing at the high points - Weak strike (Think 1921 Peace Dollar)

I'd be interested to see the TrueView once it is available in a month or so

mr1931S

@DelawareDoons said:
Luster, Buster. Need that flash to get that cash. If it aint shiny, it gets a whuppin on the heinie.

^This^

cheezhed

The hits below "C" might be problematic?

Kove

To get to the supergrades like 68, a coin has to have "the look" or "pop'.

This coin doesn't pop. Compare it to the other 68s shown. You can easily see "the look"

jayPem

That’s a great looking coin.

Wait, what? 🤔

Coinscratch

@jayPem said:

That’s a great looking coin.

Wait, what? 🤔

My bad I was referring to the quality of the surfaces when enlarged. Looks like puke from arms length.

FranklinHalfAddict

@Che_Grapes said:

@FranklinHalfAddict said:
What does “fixin to learn me” mean?

Lol / you ain’t from the south are you?

I’m from an area of the country that teaches grammar in grade school.