38 D nickel FS or no FS

gumby1234

coinbuf

No, not even close.

WAYNEAS

I also would go with a no.
Wayne

gumby1234

@coinbuf I ask because its a GTG on MyCollect and is graded FS. Of course I dont agree but wanted to check because I know the FS designation is different for this year than in later years.

coinbuf

@gumby1234 said:
@coinbuf I ask because its a GTG on MyCollect and is graded FS. Of course I dont agree but wanted to check because I know the FS designation is different for this year than in later years.

I don't collect Jeffs, but I'm not aware of any reason that the 38-D is graded differently than any other year when it comes to the steps. And I'm not surprised that it has the designation, I almost added that I would not be surprised if the label noted FS as the FS designation is one of the most egregiously overused designation in grading. But that contact mark between the center columns is an automatic disqualifier imo.

gumby1234

@coinbuf I guess that the steps on the very early Jeff's were a different design. It changed at some point and the steps were much clearer.

segoja

The rev of 38 is a wavy step, by design. This coin is very close to FS, but the cut holds it back for me.

The Rev of 38 will never look like the Rev of 40, so they can not be graded the same. Look at the registry sets and zoom in on the steps....

jesbroken

No FS.
Jim

johnny9434

No way 👎

FlyingAl

Definitely FS.

1938s have a wavy steps design, which makes the steps appear weak.

Here is a fully struck Proof for comparison:

Jimnight

I'm thinking it's not FS.

coinbuf

@FlyingAl said:
Definitely FS.

1938s have a wavy steps design, which makes the steps appear weak.

Thats the modern coin dealer way to move worthless inventory, make up a great story like wavy steps to explain why something is not what it should be and charge a premium, complete bs. Next dealers will convince the TPG's that 4 steps is better than three and get that on the label so they can charge a boatload for that bs, sad what some people are brainwashed to believe. And wavy steps aside, that cut between the two middle columns makes it an automatic no go.

FlyingAl

@coinbuf said:

@FlyingAl said:
Definitely FS.

1938s have a wavy steps design, which makes the steps appear weak.

Thats the modern coin dealer way to move worthless inventory, make up a great story like wavy steps to explain why something is not what it should be and charge a premium, complete bs. Next dealers will convince the TPG's that 4 steps is better than three and get that on the label so they can charge a boatload for that bs, sad what some people are brainwashed to believe. And wavy steps aside, that cut between the two middle columns makes it an automatic no go.

The design was quite literally changed.

Ever wonder why PCGS designates 1940 Reverse of 1938 nickels? Because the Mint used 1938 hubs to make the 1940 reverse dies. Take a look if you don't believe me.

coinbuf

@FlyingAl said:

@coinbuf said:

@FlyingAl said:
Definitely FS.

1938s have a wavy steps design, which makes the steps appear weak.

Thats the modern coin dealer way to move worthless inventory, make up a great story like wavy steps to explain why something is not what it should be and charge a premium, complete bs. Next dealers will convince the TPG's that 4 steps is better than three and get that on the label so they can charge a boatload for that bs, sad what some people are brainwashed to believe. And wavy steps aside, that cut between the two middle columns makes it an automatic no go.

The design was quite literally changed.

Ever wonder why PCGS designates 1940 Reverse of 1938 nickels? Because the Mint used 1938 hubs to make the 1940 reverse dies. Take a look if you don't believe me.

I understand what you are saying and I don't dispute that, but just because the 38 dies were not good enough to create a coin with full steps is no reason to create them out of thin air. Either the steps are there ore they are not, and on most if not all 38's they are not there, end of story.

This concocted story on the steps is just another way for dealers to push substandard material at premium prices. It's sad that collectors fall for this.

davewesen

If I submitted it probably no FS - between pillar 2 and 3 the bottom step is not complete from what the picture shows

I agree it could easily be considered a 'liner' with me estimating 30% FS and 70% not

FlyingAl

@coinbuf said:

@FlyingAl said:

@coinbuf said:

@FlyingAl said:
Definitely FS.

1938s have a wavy steps design, which makes the steps appear weak.

Thats the modern coin dealer way to move worthless inventory, make up a great story like wavy steps to explain why something is not what it should be and charge a premium, complete bs. Next dealers will convince the TPG's that 4 steps is better than three and get that on the label so they can charge a boatload for that bs, sad what some people are brainwashed to believe. And wavy steps aside, that cut between the two middle columns makes it an automatic no go.

The design was quite literally changed.

Ever wonder why PCGS designates 1940 Reverse of 1938 nickels? Because the Mint used 1938 hubs to make the 1940 reverse dies. Take a look if you don't believe me.

I understand what you are saying and I don't dispute that, but just because the 38 dies were not good enough to create a coin with full steps is no reason to create them out of thin air. Either the steps are there ore they are not, and on most if not all 38's they are not there, end of story.

This concocted story on the steps is just another way for dealers to push substandard material at premium prices. It's sad that collectors fall for this.

I'm quite shocked you feel this story is "concocted". This is an undisputed fact that the designs were different. It's just as much true as the Accented Hair 1964 half dollars.

If you feel the design was not good enough to produce FS 1938 and some 1940 nickels, fair enough. However, I believe that this view should ensure that pretty much all (I'd say all) 1938 nickels cannot get the designation. I have yet to see even a Proof that would meet the standard for the Reverse of 1939 FS requirement.

jesbroken

@FlyingAl said:
Definitely FS.

1938s have a wavy steps design, which makes the steps appear weak.

Here is a fully struck Proof for comparison:

While it is a fact regarding the wavy steps and the date is not a shining example for FS collectors, there is not much of a comparison between these two coins. As I stated, I do not think this coin deserves FS attribution. JMO

Ronsanderson

yep, FS.
Perhaps the skeptic also denies that there are two types of 1913 nickels or 1917 quarters!

Another proof.

jmlanzaf

@Ronsanderson said:
yep, FS.
Perhaps the skeptic also denies that there are two types of 1913 nickels or 1917 quarters!

Another proof.

He's not denying that there are two types. He's saying that redefining "full steps" based on the design difference is driven by marketing and diminishes the meaning of FS.

Ronsanderson

@jmlanzaf said:

@Ronsanderson said:
yep, FS.
Perhaps the skeptic also denies that there are two types of 1913 nickels or 1917 quarters!

Another proof.

He's not denying that there are two types. He's saying that redefining "full steps" based on the design difference is driven by marketing and diminishes the meaning of FS.

Intriguing, in that the design difference removes some of the criteria used. So you are saying that coins with different designs have to be judged by the same criteria? Like full wheat ears on a 1959 cent?

Steven59

No - not even with the TPG's lack of standards.

jmlanzaf

@Ronsanderson said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Ronsanderson said:
yep, FS.
Perhaps the skeptic also denies that there are two types of 1913 nickels or 1917 quarters!

Another proof.

He's not denying that there are two types. He's saying that redefining "full steps" based on the design difference is driven by marketing and diminishes the meaning of FS.

Intriguing, in that the design difference removes some of the criteria used. So you are saying that coins with different designs have to be judged by the same criteria? Like full wheat ears on a 1959 cent?

You'll have to ask him. He's the one who said it.

But, yes. If you have a 1959 cent with full wheat ear designation, you should complain. That is actually your position with the nickel, by the way: the 1959 cent should get full wheat ear designation, like the FS on the1938 nickel, because they are as full as they come.

coinbuf

@FlyingAl said:

@coinbuf said:

@FlyingAl said:

@coinbuf said:

@FlyingAl said:
Definitely FS.

1938s have a wavy steps design, which makes the steps appear weak.

Thats the modern coin dealer way to move worthless inventory, make up a great story like wavy steps to explain why something is not what it should be and charge a premium, complete bs. Next dealers will convince the TPG's that 4 steps is better than three and get that on the label so they can charge a boatload for that bs, sad what some people are brainwashed to believe. And wavy steps aside, that cut between the two middle columns makes it an automatic no go.

The design was quite literally changed.

Ever wonder why PCGS designates 1940 Reverse of 1938 nickels? Because the Mint used 1938 hubs to make the 1940 reverse dies. Take a look if you don't believe me.

I understand what you are saying and I don't dispute that, but just because the 38 dies were not good enough to create a coin with full steps is no reason to create them out of thin air. Either the steps are there ore they are not, and on most if not all 38's they are not there, end of story.

This concocted story on the steps is just another way for dealers to push substandard material at premium prices. It's sad that collectors fall for this.

I'm quite shocked you feel this story is "concocted". This is an undisputed fact that the designs were different. It's just as much true as the Accented Hair 1964 half dollars.

If you feel the design was not good enough to produce FS 1938 and some 1940 nickels, fair enough. However, I believe that this view should ensure that pretty much all (I'd say all) 1938 nickels cannot get the designation. I have yet to see even a Proof that would meet the standard for the Reverse of 1939 FS requirement.

Again I'm not disputing that there was a redesign from the original and part of that redesign involved making the steps fuller and more detailed. What I'm saying is that if the original design was not able to produce strikes with full steps then a FS designation should not be added just because someone decided that almost is good enough. If the design/master/working dies could not produce full and distinct 5 or 6 steps from the original design and tooling then fine there should not be any coins made from that design and tooling given a FS designation.

Let us compare this situation to another series, the SLQ. There are many dates in the twenties with "dish head" strikes, strikes where the head of liberty is flat and dish shaped due to issues with striking. This does not affect only a small number of coins but rather a significant portion of the entire production for some years/mints. Should we be designating those dish head strikes full head simply because it was the best that mint could produce? No, we do not, and we should not just as we should not settle for calling something full steps that is not.

I dislike gray area when it comes to a strike designation, either it is or it is not.

FlyingAl

@coinbuf said:

@FlyingAl said:

@coinbuf said:

@FlyingAl said:

@coinbuf said:

@FlyingAl said:
Definitely FS.

1938s have a wavy steps design, which makes the steps appear weak.

Thats the modern coin dealer way to move worthless inventory, make up a great story like wavy steps to explain why something is not what it should be and charge a premium, complete bs. Next dealers will convince the TPG's that 4 steps is better than three and get that on the label so they can charge a boatload for that bs, sad what some people are brainwashed to believe. And wavy steps aside, that cut between the two middle columns makes it an automatic no go.

The design was quite literally changed.

Ever wonder why PCGS designates 1940 Reverse of 1938 nickels? Because the Mint used 1938 hubs to make the 1940 reverse dies. Take a look if you don't believe me.

I understand what you are saying and I don't dispute that, but just because the 38 dies were not good enough to create a coin with full steps is no reason to create them out of thin air. Either the steps are there ore they are not, and on most if not all 38's they are not there, end of story.

This concocted story on the steps is just another way for dealers to push substandard material at premium prices. It's sad that collectors fall for this.

I'm quite shocked you feel this story is "concocted". This is an undisputed fact that the designs were different. It's just as much true as the Accented Hair 1964 half dollars.

If you feel the design was not good enough to produce FS 1938 and some 1940 nickels, fair enough. However, I believe that this view should ensure that pretty much all (I'd say all) 1938 nickels cannot get the designation. I have yet to see even a Proof that would meet the standard for the Reverse of 1939 FS requirement.

Again I'm not disputing that there was a redesign from the original and part of that redesign involved making the steps fuller and more detailed. What I'm saying is that if the original design was not able to produce strikes with full steps then a FS designation should not be added just because someone decided that almost is good enough. If the design/master/working dies could not produce full and distinct 5 or 6 steps from the original design and tooling then fine there should not be any coins made from that design and tooling given a FS designation.

Let us compare this situation to another series, the SLQ. There are many dates in the twenties with "dish head" strikes, strikes where the head of liberty is flat and dish shaped due to issues with striking. This does not affect only a small number of coins but rather a significant portion of the entire production for some years/mints. Should we be designating those dish head strikes full head simply because it was the best that mint could produce? No, we do not, and we should not just as we should not settle for calling something full steps that is not.

Ok, this makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the clarification.

I wonder if perhaps there should be a different standard for 1938 nickels due to the redesign.

coinbuf

@FlyingAl said:

@coinbuf said:

@FlyingAl said:

@coinbuf said:

@FlyingAl said:

@coinbuf said:

@FlyingAl said:
Definitely FS.

1938s have a wavy steps design, which makes the steps appear weak.

Thats the modern coin dealer way to move worthless inventory, make up a great story like wavy steps to explain why something is not what it should be and charge a premium, complete bs. Next dealers will convince the TPG's that 4 steps is better than three and get that on the label so they can charge a boatload for that bs, sad what some people are brainwashed to believe. And wavy steps aside, that cut between the two middle columns makes it an automatic no go.

The design was quite literally changed.

Ever wonder why PCGS designates 1940 Reverse of 1938 nickels? Because the Mint used 1938 hubs to make the 1940 reverse dies. Take a look if you don't believe me.

I understand what you are saying and I don't dispute that, but just because the 38 dies were not good enough to create a coin with full steps is no reason to create them out of thin air. Either the steps are there ore they are not, and on most if not all 38's they are not there, end of story.

This concocted story on the steps is just another way for dealers to push substandard material at premium prices. It's sad that collectors fall for this.

I'm quite shocked you feel this story is "concocted". This is an undisputed fact that the designs were different. It's just as much true as the Accented Hair 1964 half dollars.

If you feel the design was not good enough to produce FS 1938 and some 1940 nickels, fair enough. However, I believe that this view should ensure that pretty much all (I'd say all) 1938 nickels cannot get the designation. I have yet to see even a Proof that would meet the standard for the Reverse of 1939 FS requirement.

Again I'm not disputing that there was a redesign from the original and part of that redesign involved making the steps fuller and more detailed. What I'm saying is that if the original design was not able to produce strikes with full steps then a FS designation should not be added just because someone decided that almost is good enough. If the design/master/working dies could not produce full and distinct 5 or 6 steps from the original design and tooling then fine there should not be any coins made from that design and tooling given a FS designation.

Let us compare this situation to another series, the SLQ. There are many dates in the twenties with "dish head" strikes, strikes where the head of liberty is flat and dish shaped due to issues with striking. This does not affect only a small number of coins but rather a significant portion of the entire production for some years/mints. Should we be designating those dish head strikes full head simply because it was the best that mint could produce? No, we do not, and we should not just as we should not settle for calling something full steps that is not.

Ok, this makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the clarification.

I wonder if perhaps there should be a different standard for 1938 nickels due to the redesign.

I say no, wandering standards is why we have gradeflation, have a standard and stick to it.

Clackamas1

No full step. These dies just sucked, plus you have the gash.

leothelyon

A mark on the steps can occur during the stamping of a coin. These marks are referred to as "strike-throughs'. Or it could be something on the planchet that didn't get pressed out entirely during the minting process. IMO, the mark on the steps is not a contact mark or a hit from another coin.
Looking at the steps from one side to the other, I've noticed the steps struck up weak in the center but are stronger at the sides. My guess is, the coin may have a very strong strike overall on the other design features. How deep the hairlines on Jefferson, how sharply the windows and side steps were struck up would give good reason as to why the center steps are weak. Had the working dies taken on a bit more/suffered more wear, the steps would have, might have formedshaped up better, been stronger at the center of the steps, that more metal would had been forced into the step area of the die giving us stronger steps to observe!
The makeup of the steps really depends on the overall strike of the coin. A VEDS prooflike Reverse of 1938 example will only show 4 1/2 steps and from my experiences from observing this series for over 34 years, IMO, 4 1/2 steps is FS for such a coin.
The FS designation is measure that is administered, given to a coin that shows all the details of the works by the sculptor, Felix Schlag, "Is the coin all there?"
And many collectors, sellers, coin grading companies haven't been playing with a full deck, that the coin must be all there to receive the FS designation.
And there is good separation on the OP's coin between the 4th and 5th step area under the 3rd pillar. Not the best but we can't be canceling out the earliest of strikes due to one minuscule area of a coin or a mark that may have occurred during the making of that coin.

Leo ☺

MFeld

@coinbuf said:

@FlyingAl said:

@coinbuf said:

@FlyingAl said:

@coinbuf said:

@FlyingAl said:

@coinbuf said:

@FlyingAl said:
Definitely FS.

1938s have a wavy steps design, which makes the steps appear weak.

Thats the modern coin dealer way to move worthless inventory, make up a great story like wavy steps to explain why something is not what it should be and charge a premium, complete bs. Next dealers will convince the TPG's that 4 steps is better than three and get that on the label so they can charge a boatload for that bs, sad what some people are brainwashed to believe. And wavy steps aside, that cut between the two middle columns makes it an automatic no go.

The design was quite literally changed.

Ever wonder why PCGS designates 1940 Reverse of 1938 nickels? Because the Mint used 1938 hubs to make the 1940 reverse dies. Take a look if you don't believe me.

I understand what you are saying and I don't dispute that, but just because the 38 dies were not good enough to create a coin with full steps is no reason to create them out of thin air. Either the steps are there ore they are not, and on most if not all 38's they are not there, end of story.

This concocted story on the steps is just another way for dealers to push substandard material at premium prices. It's sad that collectors fall for this.

I'm quite shocked you feel this story is "concocted". This is an undisputed fact that the designs were different. It's just as much true as the Accented Hair 1964 half dollars.

If you feel the design was not good enough to produce FS 1938 and some 1940 nickels, fair enough. However, I believe that this view should ensure that pretty much all (I'd say all) 1938 nickels cannot get the designation. I have yet to see even a Proof that would meet the standard for the Reverse of 1939 FS requirement.

Again I'm not disputing that there was a redesign from the original and part of that redesign involved making the steps fuller and more detailed. What I'm saying is that if the original design was not able to produce strikes with full steps then a FS designation should not be added just because someone decided that almost is good enough. If the design/master/working dies could not produce full and distinct 5 or 6 steps from the original design and tooling then fine there should not be any coins made from that design and tooling given a FS designation.

Let us compare this situation to another series, the SLQ. There are many dates in the twenties with "dish head" strikes, strikes where the head of liberty is flat and dish shaped due to issues with striking. This does not affect only a small number of coins but rather a significant portion of the entire production for some years/mints. Should we be designating those dish head strikes full head simply because it was the best that mint could produce? No, we do not, and we should not just as we should not settle for calling something full steps that is not.

Ok, this makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the clarification.

I wonder if perhaps there should be a different standard for 1938 nickels due to the redesign.

I say no, wandering standards is why we have gradeflation, have a standard and stick to it.

Even if the date were graded by a different standard - which it shouldn't be - the conspicuous mark that interrupts the steps, should preclude the FS designation for the coin being discussed.

erscolo

Not FS. Thank you for the clear photographic evidence.

BuffaloIronTail

@FlyingAl said:
Definitely FS.

1938s have a wavy steps design, which makes the steps appear weak.

Here is a fully struck Proof for comparison:

Surprising, to say the least. Didn't know the particulars about this date.

Pete