Evidence that the 1954-S Roosevelt No JS FS-901 Variety is Really just the Result of Polishing or We

MisterSmithGuesser

In Breen's Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins, he mentions a variety of a 1954-S Roosevelt dime that is missing the JS initials and numbers it Breen-3736. Bill Fivaz and J.T. Stanton list it in the Cherrypickers' Guide as FS-10c-1954S-901. PCGS recognizes the variety, simply calling it "No JS FS-901". Ken Potter, as well as a few others, believe that the variety is probably a result of either excess polishing or simple die wear.[1][2]

I got a 1954-S in the mail today, which seems to suggest that Mr. Potter is correct. On the coin below, the JS initials are just barely visible.



Other views of the initials coin:





To compare, here are the initials on a 1954-S NGC MS 67+:



And here is the No JS variety from Ken Potter's website:



The 1954-S that I received today seems to be somewhere between the normal initials and no initials...which seems to suggest that the missing initials is in fact just a result of either excess polishing or die wear. What do you think?

At MS 65, PCGS lists this variety at $125. For a 1954-S with no variety, PCGS lists a MS 65 at $4. If the variety is just the result of over polishing or die wear, do you think the $125 list price is justified?

Here are views of other spots of the 1954-S that I got today:











References
[1] About a third way down the page: http://koinpro.tripod.com/CPG5II/CPG5II.htm
[2] http://www.richardsrooseveltreview.net/1954.htm

BustHalfBrian

There a lot of "no" or "missing" varieties that are simply the result of overpolishing.

Are you saying that by PCGS calling this a "No JS" variety they are assuming the JS was never on the die to begin with?

If so, I don't think that's the case.

MisterSmithGuesser

<< <i>There a lot of "no" or "missing" varieties that are simply the result of overpolishing.

Are saying that by PCGS calling this a "No JS" variety, they are assuming the JS was never on the die to begin with?

If so, I don't think that's the case. >>



No, really just wondering if anyone thought that a coin like this is evidence of overpolishing.

BustHalfBrian

<< <i>

<< <i>There a lot of "no" or "missing" varieties that are simply the result of overpolishing.

Are saying that by PCGS calling this a "No JS" variety, they are assuming the JS was never on the die to begin with?

If so, I don't think that's the case. >>



No, really just wondering if anyone thought that a coin like this is evidence of overpolishing. >>



I think it is more likely severe die erosion.

gonzer

<< <i>I think it is more likely severe die erosion. >>



I concur.

keyman64

Lol, I didn't think there was much doubt that it was a result of a worn die, polished die, grease filled die etc etc. I have seen various stages of the coin myself. A couple of years ago I cherrypicked one off of Teletrade and doubled my money on it pretty quick. When there is ZERO evidence of the JS I think it looks like a pretty cool coin.

Baley

Interesting find, in addition to the very very weak JS, also note the weakness of 19 in the date and IN and WE in the motto, and the tip of the bust, on both your coins and Potter's pictures, on the obverse, also the striations in the field of your coin near LIBERTY. the reverse of your coin looks strong, like a new die. I'd say heavy polishing of a well-used obverse die to recondition it, and paired with a new reverse. Neat coin, I've many 54S dimes, will check some of them out. Thanks for the post