@ProofCollection said:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe the point of the designation is to provide a readily usable marker to identify nickels with strong strike. You can't get full steps without a strong strike. All designations need a technical definition and you have to draw the line somewhere (pun intended), and I get that some purists absolutely want perfect steps, but isn't perhaps a little leeway justified if the intent of identifying strong strikes is met?
Sorry, but you are wrong. You can have Full Steps and have a Monticello that is very weakly struck.
@Coinscratch said:
Those look like hammered strikes with worn dies but if that was the case then steps shouldn't be there.
These could be partially greased-filled dies. The gunk in the dies would force the metal to flow elsewhere, with the steps being the recipient of the added pressure. With nowhere else to go, the metal would have to push strongly up into the step area and give these excellent strikes.
For my part, though, I would have preferred to see the sharpness of the windows be the category, as there are so many weakly struck reverses. If we look at a proof (1951), we can see that there should be sharply defined windows and doors, with stucco textured onto the walls. Yet, even this strike should not have FS. If you zoom in on the bottom step you can see some bridging there. Does the lack of an FS accurately describe this coin?
I kind of think the steps are a step in the wrong direction, as it were. There is too much niggling about an obviously well struck set of steps with a single post-strike ding that bridges two of the lines. The FS rating is gone, but this pickiness does nothing to assess the overall quality of the original strike. (from a 1950-D)
I know the coin below is a Proof, but I use it to illustrate what a true six-step Jefferson Nickel should look like. It should alleviate any disagreement about what the top step is --- it is the "Stylobate" that the pillars rest on. Absent that no true six-step coin would be possible. This image also illustrates what the step area would look like to conform with the stated definition of "Full Steps" from the PCGS Grading and Counterfeit Detection" book. Frankly, I'm perplexed that so many otherwise competent Numismatists are confused/misinformed/ignorant of these points.
As I posted earlier on page one, this is why I sold my Full Step Jefferson Nickel collection many years ago. The FS attribution on these coins is consistently inconsistent at best and a joke at worst. I still have raw coins and am interested in the series but cannot justify spending money on what appears as a fantasy in many holders, a "Full Step" coin.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
@Maywood said:
I know the coin below is a Proof, but I use it to illustrate what a true six-step Jefferson Nickel should look like. It should alleviate any disagreement about what the top step is --- it is the "Stylobate" that the pillars rest on. Absent that no true six-step coin would be possible. This image also illustrates what the step area would look like to conform with the stated definition of "Full Steps" from the PCGS Grading and Counterfeit Detection" book. Frankly, I'm perplexed that so many otherwise competent Numismatists are confused/misinformed/ignorant of these points.
As I posted earlier on page one, this is why I sold my Full Step Jefferson Nickel collection many years ago. The FS attribution on these coins is consistently inconsistent at best and a joke at worst. I still have raw coins and am interested in the series but cannot justify spending money on what appears as a fantasy in many holders, a "Full Step" coin.
True view images can sometimes distort the steps, I have personally seen a trueview of a 1953 proof with wild looking extra steps, only to buy it and when in hand, totally normal looking
Comments
Sorry, but you are wrong. You can have Full Steps and have a Monticello that is very weakly struck.
In my travels, this is not the case with Jeffs.
If we were all the same, the world would be an incredibly boring place.
Tommy
Those look like hammered strikes with worn dies but if that was the case then steps shouldn't be there.
These could be partially greased-filled dies. The gunk in the dies would force the metal to flow elsewhere, with the steps being the recipient of the added pressure. With nowhere else to go, the metal would have to push strongly up into the step area and give these excellent strikes.
For my part, though, I would have preferred to see the sharpness of the windows be the category, as there are so many weakly struck reverses. If we look at a proof (1951), we can see that there should be sharply defined windows and doors, with stucco textured onto the walls. Yet, even this strike should not have FS. If you zoom in on the bottom step you can see some bridging there. Does the lack of an FS accurately describe this coin?
I kind of think the steps are a step in the wrong direction, as it were. There is too much niggling about an obviously well struck set of steps with a single post-strike ding that bridges two of the lines. The FS rating is gone, but this pickiness does nothing to assess the overall quality of the original strike. (from a 1950-D)
I know the coin below is a Proof, but I use it to illustrate what a true six-step Jefferson Nickel should look like. It should alleviate any disagreement about what the top step is --- it is the "Stylobate" that the pillars rest on. Absent that no true six-step coin would be possible. This image also illustrates what the step area would look like to conform with the stated definition of "Full Steps" from the PCGS Grading and Counterfeit Detection" book. Frankly, I'm perplexed that so many otherwise competent Numismatists are confused/misinformed/ignorant of these points.
As I posted earlier on page one, this is why I sold my Full Step Jefferson Nickel collection many years ago. The FS attribution on these coins is consistently inconsistent at best and a joke at worst. I still have raw coins and am interested in the series but cannot justify spending money on what appears as a fantasy in many holders, a "Full Step" coin.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
Here are a couple of wins but no FS, maybe a little stucco on the 56.
I'll see your six and raise you seven.
@Coinscratch, do you think that was a hubbing error or a striking error??
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
You got me? But you can almost count 9 maybe some kind of machine doubling.
True view images can sometimes distort the steps, I have personally seen a trueview of a 1953 proof with wild looking extra steps, only to buy it and when in hand, totally normal looking
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/