Coinfacts 1946 5c ms67 FS. What happened here?

emzee

This is an image from PCGS Coinfacts of an ms67 FS 5c. The step count is impressive!

emzee

Link to Coinfacts image: https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1946-5c-fs/84028

ricko

Looks like the steps stuttered a bit..... Cheers, RickO

LanceNewmanOCC

pretty shocking to see those long bottom 2 !

if that center section was struck well too, it would be one for the books.

look for some broadstruck or o/c etc error coins and you'll probably have your brain blown out of your head!

i've seen some pretty impressive results from error coin striking both in detail and quality of surfaces that is hindered by the collar and/or chosen striking pressure that would would not see otherwise, including on proofs.

privatecoin

Machine doubling? Look at the front of his face on the obverse and most of the letters front and back show doubling.

Aspie_Rocco

Looks like light reflection on the bottom of the step relief. Not extra steps. The lighting on these fine details can be deceiving in true views for nickel steps when in hand the coin looks much different with a loupe.

It is a nice coin but I would not pay full step money for it considering the premium and that it is Not Full Steps, it technically looks like some broken and weak steps in the first place.

Unpopular opinion:
There is a major inconsistency with full step designations. It is a bit frustrating when submitting coins and not getting FS when it is, then seeing an $8,000 coin like this. From PCGS full step guidelines

https://www.pcgs.com/news/tips-from-the-grading-room-part-3

LanceNewmanOCC

@emzee said:
This is an image from PCGS Coinfacts of an ms67 FS 5c. The step count is impressive!

.
idk to which steps you refer but for my part, the first thing i noticed was the very bottom being much more well struck than most i look at!

the 3 following examples from that page are actually kinda ironic.

1. the op coin showing essentially a full struck very bottom area
2. showing the standard poorly struck middle and bottom
3. showing a strong middle but weak bottom.

my comment though is not about what is required for any designation but just enjoyable discussable striking nuances.