Congratulations to "SAJ Jeffersons" - 100% Full Steps
NIckelCollector
Posts: 441 ✭✭
Mark:
Congratulations on being only the 2nd PCGS registry set to have 100% full steps. This is a tremendous achievement!!!
Frank
Link
Congratulations on being only the 2nd PCGS registry set to have 100% full steps. This is a tremendous achievement!!!
Frank
Link
(The Corso Collection) Always looking for high quality proof and full step Jeffersons - email me with details
My Jefferson Full Step Variety Set (1938 - Current)
My Jefferson Proof Variety Set (1938 - Current)
My Jefferson Full Step Variety Set (1938 - Current)
My Jefferson Proof Variety Set (1938 - Current)
0
Comments
Capped Bust Half Series
Capped Bust Half Dime Series
I thought the only way you place a coin on more than one Registry Set was by the owner only.
Most of the key coins were made by other collectors (like yourself). Steve Wells gave me the pedigree on the coins I got from his collection. Collectors like Bernard Nagengast, the Sistis, Steve Wells, Frank Corso (the 60-P came from you), and many others have made this set possible. It is an honor to work with collectors like yourself, and to own a piece of Jefferson history.
<< <i>Mark:
Congratulations on being only the 2nd PCGS registry set to have 100% full steps. This is a tremendous achievement!!!
Frank
Link >>
Hi Frank
I for one, must disagree! As you know, I was in Pittsburgh, PA during the auction of Nevadaman's FS Jefferson nickel collection. During my two day stay there, I examined every coin at least once. The second day I was there, the day of the auction, I made a second viewing on a number of coins that I was interested in bidding on but time allowed me to take notes on most of the coins in that collection. But before I start, let me first say that I have been collecting the FS Jefferson nickels for 14+ years and have learned much over those years. I would like to say that I'm from the old school of FS Jefferson nickel collectors but that's hardly true because I didn't start collecting this series until the early 1990'S and of course, the old school dates farther back to the early 1970's. Regardless, I can say that I have learned a great deal from the old timers and for that, I have much to be thankful for.
One of the most important lessons that I've learned during that time, is being able to recognize a FS nickel from a non FS nickel. Having the ability to do so is very important, especially when such a responsibility needs to be upheld among all FS Jefferson collectors to keep all game fair play!
The coin in question here is the lone certified 1960-D. One of the main reasons why I made the trip to Pittsburgh! And if seeing is believing, I had to see it for myself, whether or not this coin had full steps and IMO, it does not! Perhaps 4.50 steps but it's not a 5 step coin! Many of you will find this hard to believe, especially when it flies into the face of what Bern Nagangast, ANACS, PCGS and perhaps what Steve Wells may have believed concerning the step count of this coin! It's just not 5 full steps, it's that simple! The 4th step is not complete under the second pillar and interferes with the quarter section of the 3rd step as well.
The steps look very simular to the picture below.
A few of you may not like my findings and what I have posted here and may have questions concerning what motives I may have in doing so and the answer to that, there are none other than giving my opinion! For what it might be worth to any of you, it doesn't really matter much to me. Although I do think we have a problem with how the TGCs are grading these coins!
It's up to each and every one of you to uphold a high standard of grading ethics concerning what qualifies as a MS66 or MS67 coin and what qualifies as a full step coin! There is also the problem with a few people whose only motive in dealing with the FS nickels is to turn a profit at anyone's expense, submitting coins over and over again to get that big money ticket slab. "Buyer's beware" is all I can tell you! You need to be careful when buying these coins.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Think about it.
Wondercoin
Regardless what holder says, do you believe this is the best steps for 60-D ever existed?
Wondercoin
<< <i>Leo,
Regardless what holder says, do you believe this is the best steps for 60-D ever existed? >>
It may be one of the best to date but it's really too early to tell! For dates like this one, including the 61-D,
68-D and 69-DS, full step examples will have plenty of time to surface in the next 20 to 30 years and I believe that they will.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
<< <i>Leo: The only thing I personally "question" is why you decide to repeatedly come here to this board and publicly attack other collector's coins? What could possibly be gained by doing this publicly and AFTER THE FACT?
Wondercoin >>
Exactly!
Leo, you seem to have a habit of igroring certain posts and responding to others. You don't seem to respond to the ones that make sense and talk about your lack of tact and/or class (like wondercoin's above), yet you do take the time to respond to posts that allow you to dig an even further hole for yourself by denegrading someone else's coin. You take the high road by saying that other people are only out to make a buck, implying that you are not, but then take the low road in manners and common courtesy. Your "$125,000 53S" wouldn't be worth much more than a nickel if every other collector did what you are doing. Think about it. By the way, if you choose to ignore THIS post as well, people may really take notice!
<< <i>Leo: The only thing I personally "question" is why you decide to repeatedly come here to this board and publicly attack other collector's coins? What could possibly be gained by doing this publicly and AFTER THE FACT? Why not send a PM to SAJ, if you must, telling him what you think of his prize nickel? Do you not see the difference between telling the owner what you personally think of his coin in private vs. blasting all over a message board that you believe a board member bought a "bad" nickel (not to mention the companion alleged fact that the Nevadman Collection also contained "plastic" in your opinion in a very key slot)?
Think about it.
Wondercoin >>
Mitch,
I have already addressed any concerns anyone might have in my previous post. The coin speaks for itself and it should! Perhaps you could assist the owner in having PCGS take another look at it. Have Corso, JHF, or Overby look at it, for that matter, I could be wrong. And I do not criticize what others buy! I have only given my opinion!
As for the new 1960-D you mentioned, it needs to have 5 complete steps and not (i.e. 4 9/10++) to warrant the FS designation. That would be breaking the rules!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Leo: I didn't tell you how much of the 6th step was also present!!
Anyway, once again, no one is challenging your "substance" on a particular nickel, just the "form".
Wondercoin
Congratulations on the completion of the FS set. I have some idea the amount of effort
and time this set required, not only in assembling the collection but in finding all those
coins.
<< <i>
It may be one of the best to date but it's really too early to tell! For dates like this one, including the 61-D,
68-D and 69-DS, full step examples will have plenty of time to surface in the next 20 to 30 years and I believe that they will.
Leo >>
There are many who believe all that is required for lots of these coins to show up is time.
It's not that simple. Most of these coins were set aside originally with no thought as to
their quality. Those who did pay attention and seek finer examples had a huge amount of
work to locate FS coins and would be well aware that the coins they set aside were special.
These would be the first coins to hit the market, they wouldn't wait for 20 or 30 years. A sig-
nificant percentage of '60-D nickels have been long since checked for gems and only the one
coin has been found. Why should the remaining nickels produce a lot more gems?
Later nickels were saved in much lower numbers and were generally of even lower quality
than the '60-D. I've been looking at rolls since the early '70's, not only of the older coins but
of the current date coins. I've searched bags of the current date back in those days and even
tried to track a few good quality coins to their release point. Other than a few of the most
common issues, I can't recall ever finding a nice FS gem in a roll or bag!
Some of these dates were quite possibly not made for circulation at all. Many are so extremely
scarce that it's a virtual certainty they were released only in a small geographic area. It's entir-
ely possible for a run of these in four or five pallets shipped to a city like Pittsburgh to be com-
pletely unhindered by collectors and the entire quantity of this run to end up in circulation. Today
half this run would have been destroyed in fires and floods and the other half would be VG to
F coins in circulation.
Certainly there will be more FS gems found as the years go by, but these will be the common
issues like the '71-P. There could even be a small quantity of coins that were intercepted by
a collector in the year of issue of almost any date. But I was there and I was looking. Not only
did I not see other collectors looking I didn't see the coins either. The attitude at the time was
such that if you told a collector that every single gem coin of a given date were in a pallet, he
would have no interest or might get one roll to set aside.
While there are some rolls of nickels which were set aside, the problem is even more acute for
some other denominations. A few people collected nickels even after 1964 while almost no one
showed any interest in the dimes and quarters. These rolls simply don't exist at all!!! They
weren't saved and today the sole source for most of these is the mint sets.
These mint sets were not made in infinite quantity and when they get consumed there will be
no source for gems or any other uncirculated coins. Indeed, there will be no source for many of
these in better than VG condition. You'll see the rate at which FS nickels get slabbed slow to
a trickle in the not too distant future.
I actually appreciate your opinion of the 60-D. In my opinion the steps are full but weak in the area under the second pillar. I never would have paid so much for the coin if it were not in a PCGS holder. If PCGS wishes to reevaluate the coin, I would be happy to send it to them. I actually would like to see another 60-D certified as full steps. Most of my enjoyment in collecting is seeing other collector's collections. The set registry has been a great way to do this for people like me who cannot travel to shows. PCGS grading has enabled me to buy most of my collection sight unseen (although I did get the opinion of two numismatists on the 60-D).
If anyone is interested, I will post a photo of the steps on the coin later this week.
I have been searching rolls for the last year and a half and have looked at about 50,000 nickels. Have started to go threw some of the ones I first looked at for a second time. I have found that you need to
look at lot of coins to be able to recongnize witch coin for the date is truly exceptional. This is something
I am just starting to get better at.
Recently I submited a 60-d that I felt had a chance at fs. The steps are thier , but a scratch runs across them. My understanding is that if this dose not run deep enough to completly break the step fs would be
allowed ?. If not would the coin still carry any premium?
Chris.btc
<< <i>"As for the new 1960-D you mentioned, it needs to have 5 complete steps and not (i.e. 4 9/10++) to warrant the FS designation. That would be breaking the rules!"
Leo: I didn't tell you how much of the 6th step was also present!!
Wondercoin >>
Mitch
Is PCGS counting quarter steps when the coin does not have 5 complete steps? If so, then very few dates would qualify for that kind of step counting. This doesn't sound good if they do that for all the coin dates.
Is there a list of dates PCGS uses to apply this method of step counting? If the 68-D is in that group then I have a FS coin by their standards. I don't remember seeing a quarter step on Mark's coin. Again, if this method is in use by PCGS then perhaps they need to include a step count notation on their slabs like SEGS.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
No, thread hijacking here, just a big congrats!
Ken
My Washington Type B/C Set
Leo: I never said PCGS applies such a method. I personally have no problem calling a coin "5 steps" where enough of the 6th step is present as well as a very tiny merger above.
Wondercoin
<< <i>Congratulations on the completion of the FS set. I have some idea the amount of effort
and time this set required, not only in assembling the collection but in finding all those
coins.
<< <i>
It may be one of the best to date but it's really too early to tell! For dates like this one, including the 61-D,
68-D and 69-DS, full step examples will have plenty of time to surface in the next 20 to 30 years and I believe that they will.
Leo >>
There are many who believe all that is required for lots of these coins to show up is time.
It's not that simple. Most of these coins were set aside originally with no thought as to
their quality. Those who did pay attention and seek finer examples had a huge amount of
work to locate FS coins and would be well aware that the coins they set aside were special.
These would be the first coins to hit the market, they wouldn't wait for 20 or 30 years. A sig-
nificant percentage of '60-D nickels have been long since checked for gems and only the one
coin has been found. Why should the remaining nickels produce a lot more gems?
Later nickels were saved in much lower numbers and were generally of even lower quality
than the '60-D. I've been looking at rolls since the early '70's, not only of the older coins but
of the current date coins. I've searched bags of the current date back in those days and even
tried to track a few good quality coins to their release point. Other than a few of the most
common issues, I can't recall ever finding a nice FS gem in a roll or bag!
These rolls simply don't exist at all!!! They weren't saved and today the sole source for most of
these is the mint sets.
These mint sets were not made in infinite quantity and when they get consumed there will be
no source for gems or any other uncirculated coins. Indeed, there will be no source for many of
these in better than VG condition. You'll see the rate at which FS nickels get slabbed slow to
a trickle in the not too distant future. >>
Cladking
I've always respected your great insight you add to the forums! And you make many fine points that I have wholeheartedly agreed to. But of course, you've heard my side of it before and we must not forget the large number of babyboomers who are reaching retirement age! Over the last 30-40 years, millions of these very same people have bought products from the mint. There was a time where there was only one FS 1961-D but now we have 3. The coin Mike certified came from another collector of yesteryear! Are there more out there waiting to surface? I believe so and it's already happening. Let's not forget the other 1000's of FS Jefferson collectors out there who need to surface themselves. When the Sisti's ran the Ramapaugh trading co., they claimed back in the 1990's to have 300+ FS bidders. And lets not forget how the 5th 1913 Liberty V nickel surfaced, word gets around if it's being advertised. And there's the recent find of 22 1949 D/S coins all from nickel one roll. And lastly, a personal story on how I got started collecting the FS nickels. It happened right here in my little hometown with a pop of 2000. It was actually an auction of someones mass hoard of coins and the only thing I won was a Whitman folder of an incomplete set of high grade Jefferson nickels. From that little set of coin I certified some 20+ high grade full step Jefferson nickels that included the very first ANACS MS65 5 step 1953 example. To this day I'm still scratching my head on how that was possible, was it a coincedent or are there alot of folks out there that collect these coins?
The bags, rolls and mint sets will keep coming in for a long time to come. Man, I sure hope so, I still need a 61-D!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
<< <i>The completion of this set is worthy of admiration.
I have been searching rolls for the last year and a half and have looked at about 50,000 nickels. Have started to go threw some of the ones I first looked at for a second time. I have found that you need to
look at lot of coins to be able to recongnize witch coin for the date is truly exceptional. This is something
I am just starting to get better at.
Recently I submited a 60-d that I felt had a chance at fs. The steps are thier , but a scratch runs across them. My understanding is that if this dose not run deep enough to completly break the step fs would be
allowed ?. If not would the coin still carry any premium?
Chris.btc >>
Chris
Qood luck with grading process. Whether the coin certifies FS or not, if the coin is nice and it has decent steps as you have said then the coin should stand by itself as a great nickel to own by anyone who can recognise such an important coin. Let me know how it turns out, I'd like seeing the coin myself, if that was possible.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
<< <i>Leo,
I actually appreciate your opinion of the 60-D. In my opinion the steps are full but weak in the area under the second pillar. I never would have paid so much for the coin if it were not in a PCGS holder. If PCGS wishes to reevaluate the coin, I would be happy to send it to them. I actually would like to see another 60-D certified as full steps. Most of my enjoyment in collecting is seeing other collector's collections. The set registry has been a great way to do this for people like me who cannot travel to shows. PCGS grading has enabled me to buy most of my collection sight unseen (although I did get the opinion of two numismatists on the 60-D).
If anyone is interested, I will post a photo of the steps on the coin later this week. >>
Hi Mark
Let me first apologize if I have said anything that may have been misconstrued the wrong way by you or anyone else for that matter but I don't believe I have done so, so let's move on! lol
Actually Mike, I really thought that section of the step was wiped out and I believe there was also a thin vertical nick accompaning that area of the steps and that the steps did not extend with clarity all the way to the left side.
If it's in the best interest of other collectors besides myself then you should have the coin looked at a second time. But I would rather you have it looked at by some outside source other than PCGS just to get that second opinion. I could help you there including photographing the coin and steps. But you can do what you like, I don't believe anyone else cares whether it actually is or not besides myself. and for that matter, I already know.
On a side note, what are your plans now that you have completed the set? Will there be an auction or do you plan on upgrading. I for one would like to see your collection, if it were possible. Good luck with whatever you plan on doing with the collection.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Not to mention you appear to only care AFTER the auction was completed . Not a peep from you before the auction unlike say the 3/04 Portland Signature sale where you were writing "War & Peace" on the dozen or so nickels in that sale way before the auction took place. This is the mystery to me - why you are so willing to "help out" well after the fact.
This isn't to say Mark wouldn't appreciate your generous offer to blow up photos of the steps on his nickel which you desire to now prove to Mark and the world are not there.
Wondercoin
<< <i>... we must not forget the large number of babyboomers who are reaching retirement age! Over the last 30-40 years, millions of these very same people have bought products from the mint. There was a time where there was only one FS 1961-D but now we have 3. The coin Mike certified came from another collector of yesteryear! Are there more out there waiting to surface? I believe so and it's already happening. Let's not forget the other 1000's of FS Jefferson collectors out there who need to surface themselves. When the Sisti's ran the Ramapaugh trading co., they claimed back in the 1990's to have 300+ FS bidders. And lets not forget how the 5th 1913 Liberty V nickel surfaced, word gets around if it's being advertised. And there's the recent find of 22 1949 D/S coins all from nickel one roll. And lastly, a personal story on how I got started collecting the FS nickels. It happened right here in my little hometown with a pop of 2000. It was actually an auction of someones mass hoard of coins and the only thing I won was a Whitman folder of an incomplete set of high grade Jefferson nickels. From that little set of coin I certified some 20+ high grade full step Jefferson nickels that included the very first ANACS MS65 5 step 1953 example. To this day I'm still scratching my head on how that was possible, was it a coincedent or are there alot of folks out there that collect these coins?
The bags, rolls and mint sets will keep coming in for a long time to come. Man, I sure hope so, I still need a 61-D!
Leo >>
My contention isn't that there are no more of these coins to be made from rolls, mint sets, and
old time collections. There's little question that there are more very high grade coins out there
and that many will trickle back into the market for generations. My contention is that these coins
are almost exclusively common dates and those which are rare will not represent all the rare dates.
While total populations well may double or triple from these levels (not that I'd predict this), These
new coins will not be neatly distributed among all the dates. Some dates will swell while others
may have no increase whatsoever. It's not possible to really know and I still have trouble believ-
ing the '68-S is so available, but there will be some dates with little or no change in pops and those
with the lowest pops are far more likely to do this than those which are now more common.
It is the dates that are being made primarily from mint sets which may provide the greatest surprises.
The pops of most of these are going to "hit a wall" in the not distant future and even the second and
third tier coins of these dates will show only small increases in pops.
<< <i>Are there more out there waiting to surface? I believe so and it's already happening. Let's not forget the other 1000's of FS Jefferson collectors out there who need to surface themselves. When the Sisti's ran the Ramapaugh trading co., they claimed back in the 1990's to have 300+ FS bidders. >>
I've been lurking on these various threads, and really appreciate the knowledge the Jefferson collectors are bringing to the table. I had to respond only because I recognized myself in Leo's comment above. I built my FS nickel set raw in the late 1980s and early 1990s, including several purchases from the Sisti's auctions. The coins then sat all but forgotten for close to ten years as my interests drifted to other things.
When I discovered these boards and found out what the market was like for certified FS nickels, I started submitting the best of my collection to PCGS. I haven't made any killer grades yet (a few manslaughter convictions, maybe, but no killers), as my standards weren't quite up to PCGS', but overall I'm happy with how my coins have held up in the current market. While I gave up on my set long before finding any of the true rarities (no 60-D or 61-D, sorry), I don't doubt for a minute that there could still be outstanding collections in hiding and outside of TPG holders.
One question for all of the Jeff guys reading along - I have a 1953-S in an old (10-digit serial #) PCI holder, graded "MS63 Weak Strike 4.75 steps". The grade and attribution are spot-on, as there is the weakness under the third pillar keeping the coin from FS. Is there a market for key date close-but-no-designation coins like this?
Thanks again, as I've really enjoyed following this discussion.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
I admire guys like you & Frank, true jefferson lovers right after me own heart. As for leo's tirade, take it with the grain of jealousy he posted it with
Thanks for the scans (i just got home) that 42d/d rocks my au55 to the ground, but have a suitable upgrade peice being offerd, just hinged on my veiwing it.
CONGRATS TO MARK, AND FRANK AND JUST HAVING FUN
those are true jefferson sets indeed.
Go BIG or GO HOME. ©Bill
<< <i>Is there a list of dates PCGS uses to apply this method of step counting?
Leo: I never said PCGS applies such a method. I personally have no problem calling a coin "5 steps" where enough of the 6th step is present as well as a very tiny merger above.
Wondercoin >>
Mitch, I do have a problem with that. The rule is 5 complete steps - period. There are so many of these coins that are not FS it makes me mad. Since you talked about the Portland ANA heritage sale, the two 45-P's in 67FS at Portland were both 4.75 coins.
Brian: A couple comments:
1. When you say the "rule" - if PCGS has written that down into a "rule", please cut and paste it onto this thread as that would be useful information to many following this thread.
2. I also get upset at all the "marginal" Jeffs in every company holder. We are in full agreement there. And, I have not even disagreed with Leo on the "substance" of his position on misc. coins. I simply questioned his "form", as others have.
3. I am not arguing with your assessment of the 45-P coins. However, in all fairness, I only saw one of the coins in Portland, but did hear about the other from a very reliable source.
4. Now - to the meat of your comment. I am perfectly fine calling a Jeff "5 steps" and, hence, FS, where the coin displays the top (5) steps strongly save a tiny (repeat "tiny") speck of merger while at the same time showing off at least 1/4 if not more of the 6th step. If I am not mistaken, I believe my view in this respect is enitrely consistent with the traditional "PAK" definition of 5 steps as well. Indeed, while I am not stating this is the standard PCGS employs, I would suggest that if PCGS were following my interpretation of 5 steps, it would possibly assist you in explaining how certain (not all, but certain) Jeffs were designated "FS" where a tiny speck of merger is present.
Let's face it - determining a "close call" FS is very difficult. Is it OK to turn the coin at every angle imaginable to see if a "line" squeeks through at one particular angle out of the 90 or so possible angles? And, what if the coin does have 5 clear steps at one such angle, but not at the other 89 angles? And, what if the coin has the entire 6th step showing but a speck of merger in the top 5 steps? And, on and on and on. And, this is what makes this partcular collection so darn neat!! Being able to zealously pursue these Jeffs - perhaps seeking out as close to 6 full step examples as possible, which is IMHO a LIFETIME PURSUIT!!
Wondercoin
amen mitch, amen!
Go BIG or GO HOME. ©Bill
<< <i>
4. Now - to the meat of your comment. I am perfectly fine calling a Jeff "5 steps" and, hence, FS, where the coin displays the top (5) steps strongly save a tiny (repeat "tiny") speck of merger while at the same time showing off at least 1/4 if not more of the 6th step. If I am not mistaken, I believe my view in this respect is enitrely consistent with the traditional "PAK" definition of 5 steps as well. Indeed, while I am not stating this is the standard PCGS employs, I would suggest that if PCGS were following my interpretation of 5 steps, it would possibly assist you in explaining how certain (not all, but certain) Jeffs were designated "FS" where a tiny speck of merger is present. >>
The convention as I understood it was to add up the steps under each of the four columns and divide by four. By this method, you could have a step count of 5 or more without having five complete steps. For example, a coin with 6 steps under columns one and two, 3 steps under column three and 5 steps under column four would still be a 5-step nickel (6+6+3+5 = 20 / 4 = 5). Ordinarily you would also note the number of complete steps in any description of the coin, too - the coin in my example would be "5.00 (3CS)". I believe the FSNC still uses this exact method, and SEGS notes the step count this way on their holders.
I went back through the remnants of my set again last night, the biggest thing keeping most of my stuff out of the modern FS category is nicks or bagmarks onthe steps. I never minded a few hits on the steps if they were otherwise well struck, but by PCGS' stricter standard they won't get the designation. My 1954 has nearly six full steps, but it also has a large strike-through bridging all six under the second column. I'm thinking of marketing it as the rare 'handrail variety'.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
not to claim knowledge of Leo's thought's, but perhaps part of his motivation in not commenting prior to the auction was a desire in bidding on/owning the coin, and that may have been dependent on what other collectors were bidding.
also, i think we're treading on a slippery slope to even be considering some type of a change in how PCGS grades these coins and assigns the Full Step designation. it has always been my contention and belief that in order to qualify for the FS designation, a coin must have the top five steps fully struck and unbridged by anything post-strike or pre-stike. that's fairly simple to understand, but looking at the PCGS "Glossary" it's stated as just five complete steps. even using my definition there are many, many coins which have been improperly designated. to change the method of attributing now would be disastrous.
all this to me just intensifies my belief that there are some issues which may not exist in true FS condition, despite what PCGS, Leo, you or me describes as the true appearance.
al h.
Again, I am not suggesting PCGS change at all its definition of "FS" - in fact, you mention the definition is "5 steps" which is different than what Brian said I believe and consistent with my thought that one could possibly count 1/4 or more of the 6th step if 1/4 of any one of the 5 steps above was ever so slightly impacted. Is this how you read the standard?
Wondercoin
The type one 1939PDS are such coins where the steps were given that respect without a doubt concerning their step counts of 6545 or 5546. Many have been graded in that fashion by ANACS and rightly so for that generation of FS nickel collectors. When I came along, I didn't understand that step count very well and so I ended up turning down such coins because I wanted 5 complete steps, not 4!
I truly believe if ANACS had included a step notation on their slabs back when then many collectors of today would understand it!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
<< <i>
<< <i>Is there a list of dates PCGS uses to apply this method of step counting?
Leo: I never said PCGS applies such a method. I personally have no problem calling a coin "5 steps" where enough of the 6th step is present as well as a very tiny merger above.
Wondercoin >>
Mitch, I do have a problem with that. The rule is 5 complete steps - period. There are so many of these coins that are not FS it makes me mad. Since you talked about the Portland ANA heritage sale, the two 45-P's in 67FS at Portland were both 4.75 coins. >>
Hi Brian
I would like to add, from what I saw of Nevadaman's collection, there were several coins that I did not consider having full steps. I would have disqualified many of these coins due to nicks, bridges and weak areas in the steps.
I think now would be an appropriate time to post it here for whatever it's worth.
Keep in mind that I compiled this list over 3 weeks ago.
Folks, I can't stand it anymore, I need to spill the beans about the overall quality of Nevadaman's collection.....per coin that is! I had my sights set on the 39-S, 46-S and the 48-D for it's quality and strike and also that it showed most of the 6th step but it was somewhat weak. The 44-P had some very nice toning but there were too many hits on the forehead and cheek. So I passed on that one up as well. I liked the 45-P & D, 49-D, 51-D for their qualities and strikes, including the 59-D. The 54-D, the one I drove 600+ miles to see unfortunately had a long scrape in the hair. The 46-S was very colorful and I would of liked to have owned it but I messed up and missed out on the bidding. It probably would have went beyond, my max bid of $1000 anyway.
Here are my opinions on a few of the other coins.
As I go over these coins and give my opinions on them, feel free to check the pictures of each coin at the
Bowers and Merena's website.
I thought the 38PD were not FS. $748 and $299!
38-S although not certified as FS, a very nice coin and did not sell.
39 was below average for it’s assigned grade, nick on cheek. Sold for $259
The 39-D (did not sell) & S ($863) were very nice!
40 was very nice! $1955!
40-D was very nice but did not sell!
The 40-S PCGS MS67FS had nicks on the cheek and steps but had excellent toning. It was overgraded and sold for $2875!
The 41 PCGS MS66FS had less than a full strike. Sold for $230
The 41-D PCGS MS67FS was very nice but did not have 6 steps. Sold for $690!
41-S was nice for the grade, $1035!
The 42 PCGS MS66FS actually graded MS64 or less, there were just too many nicks on Jefferson’s portrait. Sold for $949!
The 42-D PCGS MS67FS was very nice but not as nice as mine.
The 42-P PCGS MS67FS graded MS66. Sold for $518!
The 42-S PCGS MS66FS had a cut in the hair. $546!
The 43-P was nice for the MS66 grade. $75!
The 43-D, nice and 6 steps but had a slightly rough cheek. My coin now! $259! I personally grade it MS66.
43-S was very nice and a 6 stepper! Did not sell!
44-P was nicely toned but had several nicks on forehead and cheek. Grades MS65 at best. Sold for $259!
44-D PCGS MS67FS had a faint mark on cheek, probably should have been graded MS66! $242!
44-S was overgraded with small nicks on cheek! $1495!
45-P PCGS MS66FS was a very nicely toned but grades MS65! $633!
45-D PCGS MS67FS grades a nice MS66 due to a scratch by mouth. I loved the strike on this one and had decided to overlook the scratch but the bidding got away from me. $575!
The 1946-PD were average for their grades. Sold $489 and $69!
The 1946-S PCGS MS66FS was a very nicely toned example but more toned than luster. I also thought the obverse strike was a tad soft. Had no distracting marks to speak of, only a tick here and there. $978!
47 was not 5 steps. Sold for $575! Weak quarter step on 5th step.
47-D PCGS MS67FS had a nick on the cheek and forehead and steps but nicely tone. Not a MS67 coin! $2300!
47-S nick on coat and not 6 steps as claimed. Did not sell!
The 48 PCGS MS66FS had nicks on the cheek, steps and coat but the strike was very strong. $2300! Not a MS66 coin!
48-S was not 5 steps. Weak quarter step on 5th step. $196
49 graded MS64, was not a MS65 coin!
49-D was very nice. $230!
49-S PCGS MS66FS, the strike was less then full and there were some marks. Grades MS65! $3450
50-P PCGS MS66FS was very nice. Very nice strike, condition. $1725
51-P PCGS MS66FS was very nice but had a black pinpoint carbon tick on the cheek! Easy to over look due to it’s strike and eye appeal. $2013!
The 51-D PCGS MS66FS was one of those few coins I would have liked to owned but not at $575! Had a very nice strike!
Graded the 51-S PCGS MS66FS MS64, nick on cheek. $2185!
52 was weak, two big nicks on cheek and one on steps. $1323!
52-D MS65 not a 66 coin! $575!
52-S was not 5 steps. Weak quarter step on 5th step. Did not sell!
53 was very nice in strike, toning and steps. Perhaps one of the greatest coins out there to own. But $8050!
53-D PCGS MS66FS Was another coin that I wanted to see for myself. Nicks in hair, cheek, coat and steps. Toning was darker in person than what picture showed. The strike was soft in some areas as well. $2760
53-S was white and shiny but had no detail. Very weak strike. A misnomer of an attribute! $3105!
1954 PCGS MS65FS, grades more like a MS63. Had lots of nicks, somewhat soft strike but colorful. $978!
1956-PD were nice.
1958 had very nice toning but had a nick on steps. $2300!
The 58-D had a reverse scratch.
1959 PCGS MS66FS had a nick on cheek and in field.
1959-D very nice. Wanted but bidding went to high! $460!
1960-D Close call, had a lot of trouble under the 1st and 2nd pillars!
1961 was not 5 steps!
The 61-D had a small bridge in the steps and I thought the obverse strike was a tad soft but is one of the 3 best 61-D's I've seen.
The rest of the coins I felt were below average for the grades they received. The 63-D steps looked rough.
The 1938 proof that was included in the auction but was not Steve Well's coin was very nicely toned and would have liked to of owned it as well.
The few other coins I didn't mention just didn't stand out in my mind as high quality coins or were too common or just average for their grades!
There you have it, for whatever it's worth, my 2 cents on how I graded those coins.
IMO the overall quality of this set was below average, many coins were simply overgraded. The collector needs to keep in mind how the strike of the coin, how the nicks, abrasions, scratches play a role in determining a coins grade and condition. Collectors need to set their standards to what is acceptable in a MS grade. For example, all my MS67 coins in my set must have full strikes, be markfree, especially in the main focal areas of the coin, the profile, fields and steps. The coins must have luster and eye appeal. Grading coins catagorically according to a set standard of givens for each MS grade, concerning the strike, condition and overall quality will be helpful to many collectors.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Leo: Unless I am mistaken, didn't you state on another post recently that you felt the 60(d) was "4 1/2 steps"? Now, it is a "close call"? Why the change of heart? Or, did you not state the coin was "4 1/2 steps" on another post? Or, are you saying "4 1/2" steps is close enough to 5 steps so that 4 1/2 step coins are now "close call" coins? This is getting very hard to follow.
Wondercoin
P.S. Here was your prior (inconsistent?) statement on the 60(d):
"The coin in question here is the lone certified 1960-D. One of the main reasons why I made the trip to Pittsburgh! And if seeing is believing, I had to see it for myself, whether or not this coin had full steps and IMO, it does not! Perhaps 4.50 steps but it's not a 5 step coin!"
Ain't that the truth!!
Wondercoin
<< <i>"1960-D Close call, had a lot of trouble under the 1st and 2nd pillars!"
Leo: Unless I am mistaken, didn't you state on another post recently that you felt the 60(d) was "4 1/2 steps"? Now, it is a "close call"? Why the change of heart? Or, did you not state the coin was "4 1/2 steps" on another post? Or, are you saying "4 1/2" steps is close enough to 5 steps so that 4 1/2 step coins are now "close call" coins? This is getting very hard to follow.
Wondercoin
P.S. Here was your prior (inconsistent?) statement on the 60(d):
"The coin in question here is the lone certified 1960-D. One of the main reasons why I made the trip to Pittsburgh! And if seeing is believing, I had to see it for myself, whether or not this coin had full steps and IMO, it does not! Perhaps 4.50 steps but it's not a 5 step coin!" >>
lol There's no inconsistency there! You have never heard of "close call" but no cigar! Which is followed by, "had a lot of trouble under the 1st and 2nd pillars! Which also falls in the line of what I said in another post, "I really thought that section of the step was wiped out and I believe there was also a thin vertical nick accompaning that area of the steps and that the steps did not extend with clarity all the way to the left side."
Cheers, Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Somehow this thread got off track. I will be the first to say all of the grading services are inconsistent even with their own definition of full steps. Further complicating this discussion, each service has a different definition of full steps.
Simply every full step coin has to be closely examined by the buyer to see if the strike, luster, # of marks, eye appeal, and quality of the step count and quality, meet their purchase criteria.
So once again congratulations to Mark!
My Jefferson Full Step Variety Set (1938 - Current)
My Jefferson Proof Variety Set (1938 - Current)
i don't think PCGS grades with the quarter step method so i don't think a coin that has weakness at the third pillar-fifth/sixth step should receive the designation because the sixth step is struck up well. i feel as Leo does on this subject. if step one is full that's one step, if step two is full that's two steps..........also, it might be worthy of note that since the dies were remastered in 1989-90 the requirement was changed for the designation to six complete steps from that date forward, so quarter counting is a moot point with modern issues.
i don't quarter count at any time when i look at the step area, i never have, it seems pointless to me.
al h.
First, I wholeheartedly add my congratulations to SAJ Jeffersons. I've been trying to complete this collection in full steps too, and it's a bear. The guy's done something spectacularly difficult and deserves a round of applause.
And if the '60-D ain't full steps, it's one of the two top '60-D's in steps so it's a great coin anyway.
For what it's worth, I look for at least 5 complete steps, even if they're not the top 5. Though in practice, when you see full steps, they're almost always the top five. And if I have to squint and hold the coin on an angle to see the line go through, I'll call the coin "weak 5-steps". But if it's a weak 5-stepper and has an extra half of a step (again, almost always the sixth), I'll drop my "weak" subdesignation from my private notations.
Nitey Night From Bangkok,
Just Having Fun