PCGS has stepped up to buy back Jefferson nickels where the steps are misgraded.
The most famous is the one and only 1960-D in MS64FS that PCGS paid around $10,000 to buy back from myself and JHF. There has never been another 60-D nickel graded FS (only date in the 1938-64 set without a FS) and don't hold your breathe on another being graded anytime soon.
Virtually no one should even consider buying a valuable MS Jefferson nickel graded by PCGS or NGC without consulting with an expert in the series. I am not even aware of (5) dealers in the country that can adequately represent a collector in the pursuit of a valuable Mint State Jefferson nickel (both from the standpoint of properly grading the coin and pricing it). But, when one of these dealers are utilized, they would well be worth the commission paid on such a purchase (or more importantly on the money saved when the collector is told to "run" from a certain coin).
As always, just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
......sounds like Jefferson nickels are the single most "dangerous" series to attempt to collect at high levels. Sounds like the experts don't trust/believe other experts.
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
It's not only not FS, it's not really close to FS. It's simply fantastic for the date though.
I think FS criteria should be loosened up some on tougher dates especially as it concerns "bridging". This coin still wouldn't make it but others might.
One time (1976) a dealer friend of mine had two mint bags of 1969D nickels. He couldn't find a buyer, so I gave him face value, $400 for the two bags.
I could never find a buyer for 8000 nickels. Coin mags listed a value of 35 cents each. I never found anyone who thought they were worth more than 5 cents each.
I saw that a church was having a raffle. I donated the 8000 nickels and the church gave me a letter thanking me for "my cash donation worth $2800." That careful wording got me a deduction that was worth more than the nickels.
That was before anyone was thinking about full steps. I kinda wish I still had those two bags of nickels. The metal alone is worth more than $400. The only sure thing I can think of.
<< <i>It's not only not FS, it's not really close to FS. It's simply fantastic for the date though. >>
Oh, I fully second this. My first real series when I started collecting, was Jeffs waaaaay back...as has been said on this forum before, there are many examples of FS designated Jeffs in holders that shouldn't have the designation. Some are as obvious, or moreso, than this particular example, though, as cladking says, it IS 'simply fantastic for the date'. It's good to hear our hosts have 'stepped up' (pun intended, Mitch?...lol) on buybacks for designated coins that shouldn't have it.
<< <i>I think FS criteria should be loosened up some on tougher dates especially as it concerns "bridging". This coin still wouldn't make it but others might. >>
I always respect, and never question your comments, cladking, as you've forgotten more than I'll ever know, but I have to question this comment. Can you tell me why you feel there should be two grading standards in place for the same series? Why should 'certain years' be graded any differently than others? There are a number of dates that have very low FS populations, so why should a '60-D, '61-D, a '69-D be graded any differently than an '87-P, of which there are almost 700 FS graded (how many of thodse shouldn't have FS on the label?). Full steps are supposed to have full steps, or it's not full steps....there's an accepted definition of FS to the FS collector (I had a subscription to 'The Portico as a young lad....I also think the people ATS grading 5 AND 6 steps is just a ridiculous registry game and bucks what is accepted by hard-core FS Jeff collectors...but the 'split' grading of 5 or 6 steps is another story for another thread). A Jeff is FS, or it is not FS.
So, my question is, cladking....why have two sets of standards for 'tougher' Jeffs? Should there be two sets of standards for tougher dates for every coin with a designation (Jeffs, Roosies, Frankies, and SBA's, for those that hope SBA's will be designated 'Full Talons', though it'll never happen)????? Should EVERY coin series have a 'softer' standard for tougher dates? Personally, I don't see this....just because a coin has just a few, or even none, why should it be graded any differently?
<< <i>It's not only not FS, it's not really close to FS. It's simply fantastic for the date though. >>
Oh, I fully second this. My first real series when I started collecting, was Jeffs waaaaay back...as has been said on this forum before, there are many examples of FS designated Jeffs in holders that shouldn't have the designation. Some are as obvious, or moreso, than this particular example, though, as cladking says, it IS 'simply fantastic for the date'. It's good to hear our hosts have 'stepped up' (pun intended, Mitch?...lol) on buybacks for designated coins that shouldn't have it.
<< <i>I think FS criteria should be loosened up some on tougher dates especially as it concerns "bridging". This coin still wouldn't make it but others might. >>
I always respect, and never question your comments, cladking, as you've forgotten more than I'll ever know, but I have to question this comment. Can you tell me why you feel there should be two grading standards in place for the same series? Why should 'certain years' be graded any differently than others? There are a number of dates that have very low FS populations, so why should a '60-D, '61-D, a '69-D be graded any differently than an '87-P, of which there are almost 700 FS graded (how many of thodse shouldn't have FS on the label?). Full steps are supposed to have full steps, or it's not full steps....there's an accepted definition of FS to the FS collector (I had a subscription to 'The Portico as a young lad....I also think the people ATS grading 5 AND 6 steps is just a ridiculous registry game and bucks what is accepted by hard-core FS Jeff collectors...but the 'split' grading of 5 or 6 steps is another story for another thread). A Jeff is FS, or it is not FS.
So, my question is, cladking....why have two sets of standards for 'tougher' Jeffs? Should there be two sets of standards for tougher dates for every coin with a designation (Jeffs, Roosies, Frankies, and SBA's, for those that hope SBA's will be designated 'Full Talons', though it'll never happen)????? Should EVERY coin series have a 'softer' standard for tougher dates? Personally, I don't see this....just because a coin has just a few, or even none, why should it be graded any differently? >>
I see this in Buffalos some dates are soft strikes and they ajust the grading on them. Some of them look EF/AU but get MS64 and5's becuse of it. Why not 1,2,3 or 5 Full steeps with a hit.
<< <i>....why have two sets of standards for 'tougher' Jeffs? Should there be two sets of standards for tougher dates for every coin with a designation (Jeffs, Roosies, Frankies, and SBA's, for those that hope SBA's will be designated 'Full Talons', though it'll never happen)????? Should EVERY coin series have a 'softer' standard for tougher dates? Personally, I don't see this....just because a coin has just a few, or even none, why should it be graded any differently? >>
I believe this primarily because I believe that there should be some way of recognizing the "best" in all parameters for EVERY date. Steps are extremely important to a few col- lectors and, for the main part, they each insist on "complete steps". This is demand and there should be a supply of some sort.
But there are other basic reasons as well. Some collectors are far less likely to even begin a collection that they know is incompletable. Every collector of FS Jeffersons knows he can only approach completion so this is the state of the market and the status quo. We can't change individuals into accepting the impossibility of completing the series but we can re- define the terms so the series can be completed by more people.
I'm not really suggesting a watering down of the terms so much as simply tweaking the def- initiuons to affect populations of coins. Each individual collector is still free to pursue only those coins he finds acceptable. This redefinition already occurs in grading. Some dates don't come extremely well struck from good dies so poorer specimens have to fill their void. These poorer specimens are still the finest for the date so it's really of little impact to real collectors since we usually tend to seek the finest whether the finest is a poorly struck 1982-P quarter from worn dies or a blazing PL 1880-S Morgan.
This is merely opinion, obviously, but I also consider coin collecting a valuable passtime for many individuals and the more who collect, the better. It's a very educational hobby that pro- vides perspective on numerous important things in the world from math to the economy to the meaning of life. Anything that will help numismatics in general or collecting a specific series is good.
<< <i>I see this in Buffalos some dates are soft strikes and they ajust the grading on them. Some of them look EF/AU but get MS64 and5's becuse of it. Why not 1,2,3 or 5 Full steeps with a hit. >>
Yes. There are other ways of addressing this. We could simply add 4 steps to the mix or perhaps a "cumulative" 4 steps where you can add parts of steps. I've never really understood the "bridging issue". It seems to me a hit on full steps should just count a lot more against the overall grade rather than affecting the designation.
I am a bit of an "in the closet" Jefferson nickel collector. It's about the only modern coin I collect and I have several un-circulated sets. But I am consistently confounded by the FS designation. I have purchased several PCGS graded FS coins just for comparison sake, to ensure that I am grading and designating correctly, but that has caused more confusion than it has resolved. I now grade nickels numerically and add "well struck" if they are. I will leave the strike designations, which can increase values dramatically, to future generations. Curiously, I have the same, though lesser, problem with FBLs on Franklins, but not with FBs on dimes or FH on SLQs. From some of the coins I have seen, I think the problem is common. QDB wrote an article in Coin World several months back, lamenting the inadequacy of the FH (and other special designations) to identify a well struck coin. In his view, shield rivets were also an important identifier of a well struck SLQ. I thought it was a great article and worth considering in evaluating all series.
As for the coin in this thread, it is one very well struck coin.
Controversial Jefferson Nickel - Full Steps or not. You be the judge. based solely on the picture and the definition used by PCGS in their own Grading book I would say non-Full Steps.
that the FS designation will now include coins that show 3 or 4 complete steps. that it will be up to the discernment of the collector whether they want to search out and have a coin closer to five steps. These nickels may include dates that have pops less than 50 coins graded. This move will not only encourage collectors at all levels to collect this series but they will also be able to complete their sets not within their lifetimes but in just a few years. JMHO, but this would be a terrible idea. I think the criteria used by PCGS should be more strictly enforced and not lessened. if some date/mm combinations never have a coin designated FS then so be it.
<< <i> Controversial Jefferson Nickel - Full Steps or not. You be the judge. based solely on the picture and the definition used by PCGS in their own Grading book I would say non-Full Steps.
that the FS designation will now include coins that show 3 or 4 complete steps. that it will be up to the discernment of the collector whether they want to search out and have a coin closer to five steps. These nickels may include dates that have pops less than 50 coins graded. This move will not only encourage collectors at all levels to collect this series but they will also be able to complete their sets not within their lifetimes but in just a few years. JMHO, but this would be a terrible idea. I think the criteria used by PCGS should be more strictly enforced and not lessened. if some date/mm combinations never have a coin designated FS then so be it. >>
Of course, you're saying from experience that you have completed a full step collection, that collectors won't have problems finding all dates in the full step definition outlined by PCGS?
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
Of course, you're saying from experience that you have completed a full step collection, that collectors won't have problems finding all dates in the full step definition outlined by PCGS?
please point to me where in my reply you were able to infer that nonsense, OK?? JMHO, but this would be a terrible idea. I think the criteria used by PCGS should be more strictly enforced and not lessened. if some date/mm combinations never have a coin designated FS then so be it.
now, back to sense and logic if you care to follow.......................what I am saying is that PCGS has a definition in their own Grading and Counterfeit Detection Guide, second edition, at the bottom of page 70. when it comes to designating Jefferson Nickels as having Full Steps they don't seem to adhere to their own criteria. doing that would be a better idea than having less strict criteria just to accommodate collectors who feel they should be able to have an entire Set of coins with a "FS" designation.
as for my completed Full Step Jefferson Nickel collection, I have never said I had such a Set. in fact I have been quite open about the fact that the inconsistent grading/designating of these coins caused me to abandon Mint State coins and focus on Proof issues.
if that doesn't clear things up for you, Leo, please ask me some sensible questions and I'll respond. but if you're just about being argumentative you might want to find another member.
I personally don't care about FB, FS or FBL.....BUT......I agree with NotSure. All coins in the series should be graded the same and the step criteria should be the same for all coins.
Also, I don't like the 5 step or 6 step or cumultive step count. The steps are either all there or not!
Yes. There are other ways of addressing this. We could simply add 4 steps to the mix or perhaps a "cumulative" 4 steps where you can add parts of steps. I've never really understood the "bridging issue". It seems to me a hit on full steps should just count a lot more against the overall grade rather than affecting the designation.
As to the coin in question..........I like it, and I don't think pcgs should have to or want to "BUY BACK"this coin, as we all know the Registry sets here and ATS are full of questionable FS Jeffersons...this one is a judgement call IMO, not a no way it is call.
On that day, in that time by that grader.......I'm guessing it could have gone either way..........JMO
<< <i>I personally care about FB, FS or FBL.....BUT......I agree with NotSure. All coins in the series should be graded the same and the step criteria should be the same for all coins.
Also, I don't like the 5 step or 6 step or cumultive step count. The steps are either all there or not!
JMHO >>
DIMEMAN, someone with as much knowledge as you do actually agreed with me, not on one, but TWO points!!!!!! I must be really learning!!!! Thanks, you made my day, seriously!!!
<< <i>Of course, you're saying from experience that you have completed a full step collection, that collectors won't have problems finding all dates in the full step definition outlined by PCGS?
please point to me where in my reply you were able to infer that nonsense, OK?? JMHO, but this would be a terrible idea. I think the criteria used by PCGS should be more strictly enforced and not lessened. if some date/mm combinations never have a coin designated FS then so be it.
now, back to sense and logic if you care to follow.......................what I am saying is that PCGS has a definition in their own Grading and Counterfeit Detection Guide, second edition, at the bottom of page 70. when it comes to designating Jefferson Nickels as having Full Steps they don't seem to adhere to their own criteria. doing that would be a better idea than having less strict criteria just to accommodate collectors who feel they should be able to have an entire Set of coins with a "FS" designation.
as for my completed Full Step Jefferson Nickel collection, I have never said I had such a Set. in fact I have been quite open about the fact that the inconsistent grading/designating of these coins caused me to abandon Mint State coins and focus on Proof issues.
if that doesn't clear things up for you, Leo, please ask me some sensible questions and I'll respond. but if you're just about being argumentative you might want to find another member. >>
Well, I apologize for upsetting you. I just wanted to know how much experience you have with the series to make such a judgmental call on whether the FS designation should expand on its definition to cover those non extant FS coins or not. And PCGS should adhere to its definition of FS but it has changed and it will continue to change whether we agree with it or not.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
For some coins, none exist (or, are not known to, anyway) in uncirculated condition. Should grading standards be relaxed for those coins so that people can "complete" an uncirculated set?
All coins in the series should be graded the same and the step criteria should be the same for all coins. simple. >>
I certainly understand your point. Perhaps what's needed is an overt double standard; one maintains the existing rules and the other could be defined to include coins that are virtually FS. I have a sense that it might revivify FS collecting and result in a lot more activity. Everyone wins because the true FS would still have a premium based on rarity and the vFS would be more widely collected. FS purists still have the true coins and the change opens up a lot more interest in the well made high grade coins.
As we all know high quality Jeffersons can be nearly as difficult to find as true FS's. More demand could attract a lot of attention to these still circulating coins. Later date Jeffersons come with a host of problems and finding some dates that have none of them can border on the impossible. But they all do exist unlike the true FS and they are by definition high quality rather than merely representing FS. Many of the FS coins are not attractive. As you have pointed out before some dates didn't get FS until the dies wore down.
<< <i> Also, I don't like the 5 step or 6 step or cumultive step count. The steps are either all there or not!
>>
Actually, there are seven lines that define the six steps and there are seven lines on each of the steps at the end of Monticello. This means a true FS coin could be called "21-steps". Other than proofs I've seen perhaps two coins that could be called FS by this definition and they were both the same date (1971-P). Completing a set of these is, quite obviously, impossible. Even now we relax the rules to allow five step coins to be called FS. These are missing two lines counting the bottom.
It seems to me the standard is still set too high because many dates are too rare or non-existent in this condition. The standards might not need tossing out so much as they need a bit of tweaking. If the hubs didn't have the detail it just can't be on any of the coins.
<< <i>As to the coin in question..........I like it, and I don't think pcgs should have to or want to "BUY BACK"this coin, as we all know the Registry sets here and ATS are full of questionable FS Jeffersons...this one is a judgement call IMO, not a no way it is call.
On that day, in that time by that grader.......I'm guessing it could have gone either way..........JMO >>
You're probably right that we're being a little hard on the coin. Considering the difficulty in getting the designation most of the time this one just seems a little more like a gift. The gouge doesn't disturb me as a step collector (at least I look) but it would if I were interested in buying it.
<< <i>The most famous is the one and only 1960-D in MS64FS that PCGS paid around $10,000 to buy back from myself and JHF. >>
I wonder what became of that coin. Isn't it possibly the closest thing to a full step for that date? Does a coin like that have any special value even without FS on the label?
I have almost come to the conclusion that the top grading services have been bending a bit to suit the niches of certain collectors. The simple fact that a Jefferson nickle displays full steps or not, as of late, it would appear that what is on the label, is somehow more important than the actual coin itself. The hobby has changed from purist self thinking and education to letting others dictate what is acceptable and what is not. The hobby has forever changed and mistakes have been made, either set a common standard across the board or drop these special designations all together.
I'm not going to judge the hosts ability to ascertain a designation on this particular coin, but I do question the processes involved to arrive at this judgement.
"<< The most famous is the one and only 1960-D in MS64FS that PCGS paid around $10,000 to buy back from myself and JHF. >>
I wonder what became of that coin. Isn't it possibly the closest thing to a full step for that date? Does a coin like that have any special value even without FS on the label?"
First, for those of you who do not recall, this 60-D nickel sold for about $32,000 the first time it was auctioned off at Bowers (heavily reserved I might add). One of the magazines (Coins or Coinage?) after the sale hailed it on its front cover as essentially the greatest Jefferson nickel in the world. All the while, I had to tell JHF to pass on buying it at the auction (even though it would have finished his entire 1938-1964 Jefferson collection in FS) despite being graded by PCGS, because it was not Full Step in my opinion. Well, a couple years later (thereabouts), the owner of the coin decided to reauction it at no reserve (again) with Bowers. This time JHF and myself were determined to win it on the cheap so that PCGS could comfortably remove it from the FS holder and if they chose not to, JHF was content with simply burying the coin so it would never see the light of day again. We won it at auction for around $10,000 this time around (about 30 cents on the dollar compared to its first auction appearance). We gave it to DH and asked him to remove it from the pop reports. DH showed it to his graders ... every single one of them. By a vote of something like 11-5 (it could have been 12-6 ... I just remember it was around a 2/3 to 1/3 decision) it was determined the nickel was NOT full step. DH offered JHF everything he paid for the coin at auction minus $100 if JHF wanted to keep the MS64 coin without the FS designation. JHF obviously opted for that choice and I believe when I was visiting with JHF in Asia last year he told me that recently he had found the 1960-D nickel in the PCGS-MS64 holder in one of his bank vaults and greatly enjoyed looking at the roughly 4 1/2 stepper.
I certainly think it is possibly the nicest near FS example of a 1960-D nickel known and obviously worth substantially more than $100 at this point.
My memory is not 100% on coin stories going back nearly a decade (maybe 98%) so feel free to check the 1960-D story in full through a search of probably the registry forum.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Here's a nice 1960-D that has been searched for by thousands. The viewer needs to look pass the marks to fully understand it's strike, grade, eye appeal and steps. It's a survivor of the millions of coins that were made for that year. The best of collectors will need this coin to complete their set.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
<< <i>I saw that a church was having a raffle. I donated the 8000 nickels and the church gave me a letter thanking me for "my cash donation worth $2800." That careful wording got me a deduction that was worth more than the nickels. >>
So they booked $2800 in donation income on $400 worth of spare change? OK then...
Me at the Springfield coin show: 60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
<< <i>"<< The most famous is the one and only 1960-D in MS64FS that PCGS paid around $10,000 to buy back from myself and JHF. >>
I wonder what became of that coin. Isn't it possibly the closest thing to a full step for that date? Does a coin like that have any special value even without FS on the label?"
First, for those of you who do not recall, this 60-D nickel sold for about $32,000 the first time it was auctioned off at Bowers (heavily reserved I might add). One of the magazines (Coins or Coinage?) after the sale hailed it on its front cover as essentially the greatest Jefferson nickel in the world. All the while, I had to tell JHF to pass on buying it at the auction (even though it would have finished his entire 1938-1964 Jefferson collection in FS) despite being graded by PCGS, because it was not Full Step in my opinion. Well, a couple years later (thereabouts), the owner of the coin decided to reauction it at no reserve (again) with Bowers. This time JHF and myself were determined to win it on the cheap so that PCGS could comfortably remove it from the FS holder and if they chose not to, JHF was content with simply burying the coin so it would never see the light of day again. We won it at auction for around $10,000 this time around (about 30 cents on the dollar compared to its first auction appearance). We gave it to DH and asked him to remove it from the pop reports. DH showed it to his graders ... every single one of them. By a vote of something like 11-5 (it could have been 12-6 ... I just remember it was around a 2/3 to 1/3 decision) it was determined the nickel was NOT full step. DH offered JHF everything he paid for the coin at auction minus $100 if JHF wanted to keep the MS64 coin without the FS designation. JHF obviously opted for that choice and I believe when I was visiting with JHF in Asia last year he told me that recently he had found the 1960-D nickel in the PCGS-MS64 holder in one of his bank vaults and greatly enjoyed looking at the roughly 4 1/2 stepper.
I certainly think it is possibly the nicest near FS example of a 1960-D nickel known and obviously worth substantially more than $100 at this point.
And the guy who lost 22k or so???? I guess he just took his loss and moved on. Tough game this FS game!
Thank you Leo for the in--depth explanation. And others too. I learned something here.
My memory is not 100% on coin stories going back nearly a decade (maybe 98%) so feel free to check the 1960-D story in full through a search of probably the registry forum.
TPRC: It goes back to my very first post ... if you are not a skilled collector in this series with many years experience get the assistance of the 3 or 4 dealers who know this area inside and out and you might have a fighting chance to avoid the pitfalls common to this series. My suggestion probably rings true with countless classic coin series as well.
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
I zoomed way in. It appears to me to be a FS coin with hits on the steps. Not one I'd choose to collect, really.
Salute the automobile: The greatest anti-pollution device in human history! (Just think of city streets clogged with a hundred thousand horses each generating 15 lbs of manure every day...)
I'm sorry, this is a discrace to even have it listed as a "full step" coin. PCGS should step in and retire this one right now! Nice 1961-D, but better priced at $25 just for the strike.
All coins in the series should be graded the same and the step criteria should be the same for all coins. simple. >>
Al, looking at the close up, not only is there actual weakness and "possible" bridging in the steps under column 3 but the freaking steps don't even extend all the way to the left. No photographic ghosts or artifacts or even glare. They are just not there.
IMO, this is simply a no brainer and has nothing to do with what criteria is used regarding the Full Steps designation. Someone goofed up and hopefully, PCGS will do the right thing with regard to this coin.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
Has anyone notice the new Secure 3 prong holder this coin now resides in? It's obvious, PCGS has seen this coin a second time and has flanked their opinion with their Gold shield. Dare I say anything critical of this FS designation unless I have seen this coin personally? I think not!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
<< <i>I'm sorry, this is a discrace to even have it listed as a "full step" coin. PCGS should step in and retire this one right now! Nice 1961-D, but better priced at $25 just for the strike. >>
I totally agree, allthough I think its worth a little more than $25 bucks. This designation needs to be recalled on this coin! It is exeptional for the year and mint BUT it is NOT full steps.
<< <i>I'm sorry, this is a discrace to even have it listed as a "full step" coin. PCGS should step in and retire this one right now! Nice 1961-D, but better priced at $25 just for the strike. >>
I totally agree, allthough I think its worth a little more than $25 bucks. This designation needs to be recalled on this coin! It is exeptional for the year and mint BUT it is NOT full steps.
Steve >>
But, you know, at a different angle, it just might be full steps. (where is the pot stirrer when you need one)
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
<< <i>I'm sorry, this is a discrace to even have it listed as a "full step" coin. PCGS should step in and retire this one right now! Nice 1961-D, but better priced at $25 just for the strike. >>
I totally agree, allthough I think its worth a little more than $25 bucks. This designation needs to be recalled on this coin! It is exeptional for the year and mint BUT it is NOT full steps.
Steve >>
But, you know, at a different angle, it just might be full steps. (where is the pot stirrer when you need one) >>
I've logged many hours and late nights on hundreds of "those maybes" at all differant angles and lighting as I'm sure you have as well Leo and a lot of y'all have, all I have for it is that I've made a few but my sight is worst off for it
<< <i>I'm sorry, this is a discrace to even have it listed as a "full step" coin. PCGS should step in and retire this one right now! Nice 1961-D, but better priced at $25 just for the strike. >>
I totally agree, allthough I think its worth a little more than $25 bucks. This designation needs to be recalled on this coin! It is exeptional for the year and mint BUT it is NOT full steps.
Steve >>
But, you know, at a different angle, it just might be full steps. (where is the pot stirrer when you need one) >>
I've logged many hours and late nights on hundreds of "those maybes" at all differant angles and lighting as I'm sure you have as well Leo and a lot of y'all have, all I have for it is that I've made a few but my sight is worst off for it
Steve >>
know what you mean. Years ago, I did that but now, I look at the entire coin and if it ain't all there I don't bother with the quinting for full steps unless, of course, it might be a lollipop for some..........(please fill in with whatever truth to the matter)
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
Let's see if it even sells in the auction. I'm sure there is a significant reserve placed on it. PCGS needs to be ready to use some of their guarantee funds to retire this one!
stephunter
Posts: 2,324 ✭✭✭
Comments
Hoard the keys.
The most famous is the one and only 1960-D in MS64FS that PCGS paid around $10,000 to buy back from myself and JHF. There has never been another 60-D nickel graded FS (only date in the 1938-64 set without a FS) and don't hold your breathe on another being graded anytime soon.
Virtually no one should even consider buying a valuable MS Jefferson nickel graded by PCGS or NGC without consulting with an expert in the series. I am not even aware of (5) dealers in the country that can adequately represent a collector in the pursuit of a valuable Mint State Jefferson nickel (both from the standpoint of properly grading the coin and pricing it). But, when one of these dealers are utilized, they would well be worth the commission paid on such a purchase (or more importantly on the money saved when the collector is told to "run" from a certain coin).
As always, just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
My Original Song Written to my late wife-"Plus other original music by me"
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8A11CC8CC6093D80
https://n1m.com/bobbysmith1
I think FS criteria should be loosened up some on tougher dates especially as it concerns
"bridging". This coin still wouldn't make it but others might.
One time (1976) a dealer friend of mine had two mint bags of 1969D nickels. He couldn't
find a buyer, so I gave him face value, $400 for the two bags.
I could never find a buyer for 8000 nickels. Coin mags listed a value of 35 cents each. I never
found anyone who thought they were worth more than 5 cents each.
I saw that a church was having a raffle. I donated the 8000 nickels and the church gave me
a letter thanking me for "my cash donation worth $2800." That careful wording got me a deduction
that was worth more than the nickels.
That was before anyone was thinking about full steps. I kinda wish I still had those two bags of nickels.
The metal alone is worth more than $400. The only sure thing I can think of.
<< <i>It's not only not FS, it's not really close to FS. It's simply fantastic for the date though. >>
Oh, I fully second this. My first real series when I started collecting, was Jeffs waaaaay back...as has been said on this forum before, there are many examples of FS designated Jeffs in holders that shouldn't have the designation. Some are as obvious, or moreso, than this particular example, though, as cladking says, it IS 'simply fantastic for the date'. It's good to hear our hosts have 'stepped up' (pun intended, Mitch?...lol) on buybacks for designated coins that shouldn't have it.
<< <i>I think FS criteria should be loosened up some on tougher dates especially as it concerns
"bridging". This coin still wouldn't make it but others might. >>
I always respect, and never question your comments, cladking, as you've forgotten more than I'll ever know, but I have to question this comment. Can you tell me why you feel there should be two grading standards in place for the same series? Why should 'certain years' be graded any differently than others? There are a number of dates that have very low FS populations, so why should a '60-D, '61-D, a '69-D be graded any differently than an '87-P, of which there are almost 700 FS graded (how many of thodse shouldn't have FS on the label?). Full steps are supposed to have full steps, or it's not full steps....there's an accepted definition of FS to the FS collector (I had a subscription to 'The Portico as a young lad....I also think the people ATS grading 5 AND 6 steps is just a ridiculous registry game and bucks what is accepted by hard-core FS Jeff collectors...but the 'split' grading of 5 or 6 steps is another story for another thread). A Jeff is FS, or it is not FS.
So, my question is, cladking....why have two sets of standards for 'tougher' Jeffs? Should there be two sets of standards for tougher dates for every coin with a designation (Jeffs, Roosies, Frankies, and SBA's, for those that hope SBA's will be designated 'Full Talons', though it'll never happen)????? Should EVERY coin series have a 'softer' standard for tougher dates? Personally, I don't see this....just because a coin has just a few, or even none, why should it be graded any differently?
<< <i>
<< <i>It's not only not FS, it's not really close to FS. It's simply fantastic for the date though. >>
Oh, I fully second this. My first real series when I started collecting, was Jeffs waaaaay back...as has been said on this forum before, there are many examples of FS designated Jeffs in holders that shouldn't have the designation. Some are as obvious, or moreso, than this particular example, though, as cladking says, it IS 'simply fantastic for the date'. It's good to hear our hosts have 'stepped up' (pun intended, Mitch?...lol) on buybacks for designated coins that shouldn't have it.
<< <i>I think FS criteria should be loosened up some on tougher dates especially as it concerns
"bridging". This coin still wouldn't make it but others might. >>
I always respect, and never question your comments, cladking, as you've forgotten more than I'll ever know, but I have to question this comment. Can you tell me why you feel there should be two grading standards in place for the same series? Why should 'certain years' be graded any differently than others? There are a number of dates that have very low FS populations, so why should a '60-D, '61-D, a '69-D be graded any differently than an '87-P, of which there are almost 700 FS graded (how many of thodse shouldn't have FS on the label?). Full steps are supposed to have full steps, or it's not full steps....there's an accepted definition of FS to the FS collector (I had a subscription to 'The Portico as a young lad....I also think the people ATS grading 5 AND 6 steps is just a ridiculous registry game and bucks what is accepted by hard-core FS Jeff collectors...but the 'split' grading of 5 or 6 steps is another story for another thread). A Jeff is FS, or it is not FS.
So, my question is, cladking....why have two sets of standards for 'tougher' Jeffs? Should there be two sets of standards for tougher dates for every coin with a designation (Jeffs, Roosies, Frankies, and SBA's, for those that hope SBA's will be designated 'Full Talons', though it'll never happen)????? Should EVERY coin series have a 'softer' standard for tougher dates? Personally, I don't see this....just because a coin has just a few, or even none, why should it be graded any differently? >>
I see this in Buffalos some dates are soft strikes and they ajust the grading on them. Some of them look EF/AU but get MS64 and5's becuse of it.
Hoard the keys.
<< <i>....why have two sets of standards for 'tougher' Jeffs? Should there be two sets of standards for tougher dates for every coin with a designation (Jeffs, Roosies, Frankies, and SBA's, for those that hope SBA's will be designated 'Full Talons', though it'll never happen)????? Should EVERY coin series have a 'softer' standard for tougher dates? Personally, I don't see this....just because a coin has just a few, or even none, why should it be graded any differently? >>
I believe this primarily because I believe that there should be some way of recognizing
the "best" in all parameters for EVERY date. Steps are extremely important to a few col-
lectors and, for the main part, they each insist on "complete steps". This is demand and
there should be a supply of some sort.
But there are other basic reasons as well. Some collectors are far less likely to even begin
a collection that they know is incompletable. Every collector of FS Jeffersons knows he can
only approach completion so this is the state of the market and the status quo. We can't
change individuals into accepting the impossibility of completing the series but we can re-
define the terms so the series can be completed by more people.
I'm not really suggesting a watering down of the terms so much as simply tweaking the def-
initiuons to affect populations of coins. Each individual collector is still free to pursue only
those coins he finds acceptable. This redefinition already occurs in grading. Some dates
don't come extremely well struck from good dies so poorer specimens have to fill their void.
These poorer specimens are still the finest for the date so it's really of little impact to real
collectors since we usually tend to seek the finest whether the finest is a poorly struck 1982-P
quarter from worn dies or a blazing PL 1880-S Morgan.
This is merely opinion, obviously, but I also consider coin collecting a valuable passtime for
many individuals and the more who collect, the better. It's a very educational hobby that pro-
vides perspective on numerous important things in the world from math to the economy to
the meaning of life. Anything that will help numismatics in general or collecting a specific
series is good.
and here is one in the same order that did get FS.
Edit for 2nd set of pic's.
Hoard the keys.
<< <i>I see this in Buffalos some dates are soft strikes and they ajust the grading on them. Some of them look EF/AU but get MS64 and5's becuse of it.
Yes. There are other ways of addressing this. We could simply add 4 steps to the mix or perhaps
a "cumulative" 4 steps where you can add parts of steps. I've never really understood the "bridging
issue". It seems to me a hit on full steps should just count a lot more against the overall grade rather
than affecting the designation.
As for the coin in this thread, it is one very well struck coin.
Tom
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
based solely on the picture and the definition used by PCGS in their own Grading book I would say non-Full Steps.
that the FS designation will now include coins that show 3 or 4 complete steps. that it will be up to the discernment of the collector whether they want to search out and have a coin closer to five steps. These nickels may include dates that have pops less than 50 coins graded. This move will not only encourage collectors at all levels to collect this series but they will also be able to complete their sets not within their lifetimes but in just a few years.
JMHO, but this would be a terrible idea. I think the criteria used by PCGS should be more strictly enforced and not lessened. if some date/mm combinations never have a coin designated FS then so be it.
<< <i> Controversial Jefferson Nickel - Full Steps or not. You be the judge.
based solely on the picture and the definition used by PCGS in their own Grading book I would say non-Full Steps.
that the FS designation will now include coins that show 3 or 4 complete steps. that it will be up to the discernment of the collector whether they want to search out and have a coin closer to five steps. These nickels may include dates that have pops less than 50 coins graded. This move will not only encourage collectors at all levels to collect this series but they will also be able to complete their sets not within their lifetimes but in just a few years.
JMHO, but this would be a terrible idea. I think the criteria used by PCGS should be more strictly enforced and not lessened. if some date/mm combinations never have a coin designated FS then so be it. >>
Of course, you're saying from experience that you have completed a full step collection, that collectors won't have problems finding all dates in the full step definition outlined by PCGS?
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
please point to me where in my reply you were able to infer that nonsense, OK?? JMHO, but this would be a terrible idea. I think the criteria used by PCGS should be more strictly enforced and not lessened. if some date/mm combinations never have a coin designated FS then so be it.
now, back to sense and logic if you care to follow.......................what I am saying is that PCGS has a definition in their own Grading and Counterfeit Detection Guide, second edition, at the bottom of page 70. when it comes to designating Jefferson Nickels as having Full Steps they don't seem to adhere to their own criteria. doing that would be a better idea than having less strict criteria just to accommodate collectors who feel they should be able to have an entire Set of coins with a "FS" designation.
as for my completed Full Step Jefferson Nickel collection, I have never said I had such a Set. in fact I have been quite open about the fact that the inconsistent grading/designating of these coins caused me to abandon Mint State coins and focus on Proof issues.
if that doesn't clear things up for you, Leo, please ask me some sensible questions and I'll respond. but if you're just about being argumentative you might want to find another member.
Also, I don't like the 5 step or 6 step or cumultive step count. The steps are either all there or not!
JMHO
a "cumulative" 4 steps where you can add parts of steps. I've never really understood the "bridging
issue". It seems to me a hit on full steps should just count a lot more against the overall grade rather
than affecting the designation.
As to the coin in question..........I like it, and I don't think pcgs should have to or want to "BUY BACK"this coin, as we all know the Registry sets here and ATS are full of questionable FS Jeffersons...this one is a judgement call IMO, not a no way it is call.
On that day, in that time by that grader.......I'm guessing it could have gone either way..........JMO
<< <i>I personally care about FB, FS or FBL.....BUT......I agree with NotSure. All coins in the series should be graded the same and the step criteria should be the same for all coins.
Also, I don't like the 5 step or 6 step or cumultive step count. The steps are either all there or not!
JMHO >>
DIMEMAN, someone with as much knowledge as you do actually agreed with me, not on one, but TWO points!!!!!! I must be really learning!!!! Thanks, you made my day, seriously!!!
edited for spelling
The name is LEE!
All coins in the series should be graded the same and the step criteria should be the same for all coins.
simple.
<< <i>Of course, you're saying from experience that you have completed a full step collection, that collectors won't have problems finding all dates in the full step definition outlined by PCGS?
please point to me where in my reply you were able to infer that nonsense, OK?? JMHO, but this would be a terrible idea. I think the criteria used by PCGS should be more strictly enforced and not lessened. if some date/mm combinations never have a coin designated FS then so be it.
now, back to sense and logic if you care to follow.......................what I am saying is that PCGS has a definition in their own Grading and Counterfeit Detection Guide, second edition, at the bottom of page 70. when it comes to designating Jefferson Nickels as having Full Steps they don't seem to adhere to their own criteria. doing that would be a better idea than having less strict criteria just to accommodate collectors who feel they should be able to have an entire Set of coins with a "FS" designation.
as for my completed Full Step Jefferson Nickel collection, I have never said I had such a Set. in fact I have been quite open about the fact that the inconsistent grading/designating of these coins caused me to abandon Mint State coins and focus on Proof issues.
if that doesn't clear things up for you, Leo, please ask me some sensible questions and I'll respond. but if you're just about being argumentative you might want to find another member. >>
Well, I apologize for upsetting you. I just wanted to know how much experience you have with the series to make such a judgmental call on whether the FS designation should expand on its definition to cover those non extant FS coins or not. And PCGS should adhere to its definition of FS but it has changed and it will continue to change whether we agree with it or not.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
edited for clarity...
<< <i>well stated, Lee, in a minimum of words.
All coins in the series should be graded the same and the step criteria should be the same for all coins.
simple. >>
I certainly understand your point. Perhaps what's needed is an overt double standard; one maintains the
existing rules and the other could be defined to include coins that are virtually FS. I have a sense that it might
revivify FS collecting and result in a lot more activity. Everyone wins because the true FS would still have a
premium based on rarity and the vFS would be more widely collected. FS purists still have the true coins and
the change opens up a lot more interest in the well made high grade coins.
As we all know high quality Jeffersons can be nearly as difficult to find as true FS's. More demand could attract
a lot of attention to these still circulating coins. Later date Jeffersons come with a host of problems and finding
some dates that have none of them can border on the impossible. But they all do exist unlike the true FS and
they are by definition high quality rather than merely representing FS. Many of the FS coins are not attractive.
As you have pointed out before some dates didn't get FS until the dies wore down.
<< <i>
Also, I don't like the 5 step or 6 step or cumultive step count. The steps are either all there or not!
>>
Actually, there are seven lines that define the six steps and there are seven lines on
each of the steps at the end of Monticello. This means a true FS coin could be called
"21-steps". Other than proofs I've seen perhaps two coins that could be called FS by
this definition and they were both the same date (1971-P). Completing a set of these
is, quite obviously, impossible. Even now we relax the rules to allow five step coins to
be called FS. These are missing two lines counting the bottom.
It seems to me the standard is still set too high because many dates are too rare or
non-existent in this condition. The standards might not need tossing out so much as
they need a bit of tweaking. If the hubs didn't have the detail it just can't be on any
of the coins.
<< <i>As to the coin in question..........I like it, and I don't think pcgs should have to or want to "BUY BACK"this coin, as we all know the Registry sets here and ATS are full of questionable FS Jeffersons...this one is a judgement call IMO, not a no way it is call.
On that day, in that time by that grader.......I'm guessing it could have gone either way..........JMO >>
You're probably right that we're being a little hard on the coin. Considering the difficulty in
getting the designation most of the time this one just seems a little more like a gift. The
gouge doesn't disturb me as a step collector (at least I look) but it would if I were interested
in buying it.
<< <i>The most famous is the one and only 1960-D in MS64FS that PCGS paid around $10,000 to buy back from myself and JHF. >>
I wonder what became of that coin.
Isn't it possibly the closest thing to a full step for that date?
Does a coin like that have any special value even without FS on the label?
I'm not going to judge the hosts ability to ascertain a designation on this particular coin, but I do question the processes involved to arrive at this judgement.
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
I wonder what became of that coin.
Isn't it possibly the closest thing to a full step for that date?
Does a coin like that have any special value even without FS on the label?"
First, for those of you who do not recall, this 60-D nickel sold for about $32,000 the first time it was auctioned off at Bowers (heavily reserved I might add). One of the magazines (Coins or Coinage?) after the sale hailed it on its front cover as essentially the greatest Jefferson nickel in the world. All the while, I had to tell JHF to pass on buying it at the auction (even though it would have finished his entire 1938-1964 Jefferson collection in FS) despite being graded by PCGS, because it was not Full Step in my opinion. Well, a couple years later (thereabouts), the owner of the coin decided to reauction it at no reserve (again) with Bowers. This time JHF and myself were determined to win it on the cheap so that PCGS could comfortably remove it from the FS holder and if they chose not to, JHF was content with simply burying the coin so it would never see the light of day again. We won it at auction for around $10,000 this time around (about 30 cents on the dollar compared to its first auction appearance). We gave it to DH and asked him to remove it from the pop reports. DH showed it to his graders ... every single one of them. By a vote of something like 11-5 (it could have been 12-6 ... I just remember it was around a 2/3 to 1/3 decision) it was determined the nickel was NOT full step. DH offered JHF everything he paid for the coin at auction minus $100 if JHF wanted to keep the MS64 coin without the FS designation. JHF obviously opted for that choice and I believe when I was visiting with JHF in Asia last year he told me that recently he had found the 1960-D nickel in the PCGS-MS64 holder in one of his bank vaults and greatly enjoyed looking at the roughly 4 1/2 stepper.
I certainly think it is possibly the nicest near FS example of a 1960-D nickel known and obviously worth substantially more than $100 at this point.
My memory is not 100% on coin stories going back nearly a decade (maybe 98%) so feel free to check the 1960-D story in full through a search of probably the registry forum.
Wondercoin
pass the marks to fully understand it's strike, grade, eye appeal and steps. It's a survivor of the
millions of coins that were made for that year. The best of collectors will need this coin to complete their set.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
<< <i>I saw that a church was having a raffle. I donated the 8000 nickels and the church gave me a letter thanking me for "my cash donation worth $2800." That careful wording got me a deduction that was worth more than the nickels. >>
So they booked $2800 in donation income on $400 worth of spare change? OK then...
60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
<< <i>"<< The most famous is the one and only 1960-D in MS64FS that PCGS paid around $10,000 to buy back from myself and JHF. >>
I wonder what became of that coin.
Isn't it possibly the closest thing to a full step for that date?
Does a coin like that have any special value even without FS on the label?"
First, for those of you who do not recall, this 60-D nickel sold for about $32,000 the first time it was auctioned off at Bowers (heavily reserved I might add). One of the magazines (Coins or Coinage?) after the sale hailed it on its front cover as essentially the greatest Jefferson nickel in the world. All the while, I had to tell JHF to pass on buying it at the auction (even though it would have finished his entire 1938-1964 Jefferson collection in FS) despite being graded by PCGS, because it was not Full Step in my opinion. Well, a couple years later (thereabouts), the owner of the coin decided to reauction it at no reserve (again) with Bowers. This time JHF and myself were determined to win it on the cheap so that PCGS could comfortably remove it from the FS holder and if they chose not to, JHF was content with simply burying the coin so it would never see the light of day again. We won it at auction for around $10,000 this time around (about 30 cents on the dollar compared to its first auction appearance). We gave it to DH and asked him to remove it from the pop reports. DH showed it to his graders ... every single one of them. By a vote of something like 11-5 (it could have been 12-6 ... I just remember it was around a 2/3 to 1/3 decision) it was determined the nickel was NOT full step. DH offered JHF everything he paid for the coin at auction minus $100 if JHF wanted to keep the MS64 coin without the FS designation. JHF obviously opted for that choice and I believe when I was visiting with JHF in Asia last year he told me that recently he had found the 1960-D nickel in the PCGS-MS64 holder in one of his bank vaults and greatly enjoyed looking at the roughly 4 1/2 stepper.
I certainly think it is possibly the nicest near FS example of a 1960-D nickel known and obviously worth substantially more than $100 at this point.
And the guy who lost 22k or so???? I guess he just took his loss and moved on. Tough game this FS game!
Thank you Leo for the in--depth explanation. And others too. I learned something here.
My memory is not 100% on coin stories going back nearly a decade (maybe 98%) so feel free to check the 1960-D story in full through a search of probably the registry forum.
Wondercoin >>
Tom
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
(Just think of city streets clogged with a hundred thousand horses each generating 15 lbs of manure every day...)
<< <i>well stated, Lee, in a minimum of words.
All coins in the series should be graded the same and the step criteria should be the same for all coins.
simple. >>
Al, looking at the close up, not only is there actual weakness and "possible" bridging in the steps under column 3 but the freaking steps don't even extend all the way to the left. No photographic ghosts or artifacts or even glare. They are just not there.
IMO, this is simply a no brainer and has nothing to do with what criteria is used regarding the Full Steps designation. Someone goofed up and hopefully, PCGS will do the right thing with regard to this coin.
The name is LEE!
a second time and has flanked their opinion with their Gold shield. Dare I say anything critical of this FS designation
unless I have seen this coin personally? I think not!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
<< <i>I'm sorry, this is a discrace to even have it listed as a "full step" coin. PCGS should step in and retire this one right now! Nice 1961-D, but better priced at $25 just for the strike. >>
I totally agree, allthough I think its worth a little more than $25 bucks. This designation needs to be recalled on this coin!
It is exeptional for the year and mint BUT it is NOT full steps.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm sorry, this is a discrace to even have it listed as a "full step" coin. PCGS should step in and retire this one right now! Nice 1961-D, but better priced at $25 just for the strike. >>
I totally agree, allthough I think its worth a little more than $25 bucks. This designation needs to be recalled on this coin!
It is exeptional for the year and mint BUT it is NOT full steps.
Steve >>
But, you know, at a different angle, it just might be full steps. (where is the pot stirrer when you need one)
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm sorry, this is a discrace to even have it listed as a "full step" coin. PCGS should step in and retire this one right now! Nice 1961-D, but better priced at $25 just for the strike. >>
I totally agree, allthough I think its worth a little more than $25 bucks. This designation needs to be recalled on this coin!
It is exeptional for the year and mint BUT it is NOT full steps.
Steve >>
But, you know, at a different angle, it just might be full steps. (where is the pot stirrer when you need one)
I've logged many hours and late nights on hundreds of "those maybes" at all differant angles and lighting as I'm
sure you have as well Leo and a lot of y'all have
off for it
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm sorry, this is a discrace to even have it listed as a "full step" coin. PCGS should step in and retire this one right now! Nice 1961-D, but better priced at $25 just for the strike. >>
I totally agree, allthough I think its worth a little more than $25 bucks. This designation needs to be recalled on this coin!
It is exeptional for the year and mint BUT it is NOT full steps.
Steve >>
But, you know, at a different angle, it just might be full steps. (where is the pot stirrer when you need one)
I've logged many hours and late nights on hundreds of "those maybes" at all differant angles and lighting as I'm
sure you have as well Leo and a lot of y'all have
off for it
Steve >>
know what you mean. Years ago, I did that but now, I look at the entire coin and if it ain't all there I don't bother
with the quinting for full steps unless, of course, it might be a lollipop for some..........(please fill in with whatever
truth to the matter)
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection