I remember seeing the coin at CSNS this year. I agree with disagreeing with the coin being re-engraved, and completely understand the verdict in the absence of another coin. I also assume that everyone that saw this along its authentication journey is hopeful a corroborating specimen can be found so that they can change their minds, as am I. The motivation for doing this post-mint is fairly obviously to create full step nickels out of those that aren't. If that's the case, however, that attempt failed with this coin, and would have been tried on others of varying dates before either getting it right or giving up. Is this anywhere close to altered full-step coins Jefferson collectors have seen? PM sent with my opinion.
I was thinking that perhaps this was a type 2 (sharp steps) hubbed over a type 1 (way steps).
But there are two things wrong with this theory:
1) The sharp steps were not generally introduced until part way through the 1939 production. So seeing a sharp-steps hub used on a 1938-S seems unlikely.
2) Why is the step area so much sharper than the surrounding details. And why is the margin at the left end of the steps wider than the margin at the right end of the steps ? On both hubs (wavy and sharp) the margins are equal on both sides.
My opinion is that the coin in question was counter-stamped right on the steps with some small die. Maybe somebody was practicing how to fake full-step nickels ?
I was thinking that perhaps this was a type 2 (sharp steps) hubbed over a type 1 (way steps).
But there are two things wrong with this theory:
1) The sharp steps were not generally introduced until part way through the 1939 production. So seeing a sharp-steps hub used on a 1938-S seems unlikely.
2) Why is the step area so much sharper than the surrounding details. And why is the margin at the left end of the steps wider than the margin at the right end of the steps ? On both hubs (wavy and sharp) the margins are equal on both sides.
My opinion is that the coin in question was counter-stamped right on the steps with some small die. Maybe somebody was practicing how to fake full-step nickels ?
Your summary is better worded than mine would have been, but we agree.
I think it's post-mint alteration also.
I was thinking that perhaps this was a type 2 (sharp steps) hubbed over a type 1 (way steps).
But there are two things wrong with this theory:
1) The sharp steps were not generally introduced until part way through the 1939 production. So seeing a sharp-steps hub used on a 1938-S seems unlikely.
2) Why is the step area so much sharper than the surrounding details. And why is the margin at the left end of the steps wider than the margin at the right end of the steps ? On both hubs (wavy and sharp) the margins are equal on both sides.
My opinion is that the coin in question was counter-stamped right on the steps with some small die. Maybe somebody was practicing how to fake full-step nickels ?
My thinking is a 1940 reverse hubbed over a 1938 hub resulted in the 1939 doubled Monticello
I feel this 1938-S is post minting alteration. The left end of the steps looks to have a raised area near the top half of the non step area. The right end of the steps go further than either type 39 or type 40.
My opinion is a graver (possibly specially made) was used over existing step area, starting in the middle and going both directions towards.
Missed this bump last month. Still looking for the Sister!
With as many suggestions as this may have been an attempt at an altered FS, yet failed; are there examples of altered full step nickles? Seems as if this would be a bit more difficult to produce than split bands on Mercury dimes, full bell lines on Franklin's. Are there known examples? I guess I'm in the dark on this- I'd like to see some altered coins for designations on specified coins before arriving to this conclusion. Do we have any to show?
Also, when did all the hub bub over these designations occur anyway? The toning on this nickle appears older perhaps than before any interest with particular strike designation? IDK. Looks like an even patina/toning both obverse and reverse- not sure if artificial but it looks legit. Could be wrong.
If you're attempting an alteration on a '38-s, I'd think you'd have the art of full steps down with confidence? Why screw up, or, potentially a semi-key date?
I'm neutral on this; but throwing out some questions to consider.
@dcarr wrote: "My opinion is that the coin in question was counter-stamped right on the steps with some small die."
This is exactly my opinion all along As I got to examine the actual coin under magnification. The unaltered coin was weakly struck in the step area. The steps WERE NOT added by a graver!
I am not a FS Jefferson nickel person, but I do engrave dies and do custom engraving on a small scale. The additional steps were not engraved directly onto the coin. The surfaces have not been altered by moving metal horizontally - that is, by pushing it away.
I need to go back through and read the posts again. I haven't looked in a while. The opinions are petty evenly split. Without a sister/brother example, this one will never be deemed an official mint issued piece.
@Insider2 said: @dcarr wrote: "My opinion is that the coin in question was counter-stamped right on the steps with some small die."
This is exactly my opinion all along As I got to examine the actual coin under magnification. The unaltered coin was weakly struck in the step area. The steps WERE NOT added by a graver!
then it is an 'overstrike' because of the left end of the 'steps' show original end line
Yes, an overstrike! Just as when I take a punch with tiny little depressions shaped like breast feathers and start "overstriking" the eagle's breast on New Orleans dollars to make them appear strongly struck.
I think "alteration" (for now until proven Mint made) is a more appropriate term.
One of the comments I had sent earlier in a PM had to do with the mystery steps not matching the level of detail or die wear seen on of the rest of the coin. They're way too sharp.
I must now wonder if this attempt was borne from success in making artificial FB Mercury Dimes.
@messydesk said:
One of the comments I had sent earlier in a PM had to do with the mystery steps not matching the level of detail or die wear seen on of the rest of the coin. They're way too sharp.
I must now wonder if this attempt was borne from success in making artificial FB Mercury Dimes.
All depends what you mean by "success." I've worked at five TPGS's and we have never had a dime returned because we missed one with altered bands. That is the first place I look when I turn the coin over under the scope - middle, top and bottom. Additionally, strengthening the line in a band is completely different than adding a complete set of steps.
@messydesk said:
One of the comments I had sent earlier in a PM had to do with the mystery steps not matching the level of detail or die wear seen on of the rest of the coin. They're way too sharp.
I must now wonder if this attempt was borne from success in making artificial FB Mercury Dimes.
All depends what you mean by "success." I've worked at five TPGS's and we have never had a dime returned because we missed one with altered bands. That is the first place I look when I turn the coin over under the scope - middle, top and bottom. Additionally, strengthening the line in a band is completely different than adding a complete set of steps.
Success means it was missed by the TPGS and successfully moved into the marketplace, so by the nature of this sort of success, you would never know about it.. You could only do this on coins that were close, otherwise the strike on the rest of the coin would give it away. A fake FB on a 1945 pancake would be easily caught every time, but making a 90% FB coin into FB would be far easier than trying to add steps to a nickel. Success making FB Mercs might make you cocky enough to try making artificial steps.
@messydesk said:
One of the comments I had sent earlier in a PM had to do with the mystery steps not matching the level of detail or die wear seen on of the rest of the coin. They're way too sharp.
I must now wonder if this attempt was borne from success in making artificial FB Mercury Dimes.
All depends what you mean by "success." I've worked at five TPGS's and we have never had a dime returned because we missed one with altered bands. That is the first place I look when I turn the coin over under the scope - middle, top and bottom. Additionally, strengthening the line in a band is completely different than adding a complete set of steps.
Success means it was missed by the TPGS and successfully moved into the marketplace, so by the nature of this sort of success, you would never know about it.. You could only do this on coins that were close, otherwise the strike on the rest of the coin would give it away. A fake FB on a 1945 pancake would be easily caught every time, but making a 90% FB coin into FB would be far easier than trying to add steps to a nickel. Success making FB Mercs might make you cocky enough to try making artificial steps.
Trust me on this one. When a coin leaves a TPGS it is seen by hundreds of wannabes who wish to prove they know more than the TPGS professionals. THAT'S A VERY GOOD THING (added protection) as no one is perfect.
Therefore, if any TPGS where I ever worked was unsuccessful catching such an OBVIOUS way to increase the value of a dime, we would have heard about it! In 45+ years, I can only remember seeing one such alteration that took more than 2 sec. to detect using florescent light and a low power scope. As I recall, I zoomed the power up to aprox. 12-14X to reveal the bands were altered. Even the alterations that are etched to hide the fresh surface are easy to detect.
BTW, we believed that one deceptive alteration was done by "the Master." We named him that because he had to be the same person using a stereo microscope to add the flow lines up the side of added mintmarks!
PS Messy You know how easy it is for you to detect a 1921 IRE $? That's the same for me and altered dime bands.
@messydesk said:
One of the comments I had sent earlier in a PM had to do with the mystery steps not matching the level of detail or die wear seen on of the rest of the coin. They're way too sharp.
I must now wonder if this attempt was borne from success in making artificial FB Mercury Dimes.
This would be the easiest one with which to find success. Mercury FB, Jefferson FS, then Franklin FL.
@DIMEMAN said: @Insider2 said " THAT'S A VERY GOOD THING (added protection) as no one is perfect." That includes JA...right??
The part of my post that you took out of context applies to the buyers and sellers in the coin market who examine the coin after it is graded. That is the added protection to keep the TPGS on their toes.
As to your question about JA, yes, it includes everyone.
HOWEVER what you need to understand after mentioning JA and anyone else, Not everyone has the same grading standards or opinion of what is market acceptable or not. I don't need to make the determinations required of a finalizer or TPGS owner who backs up their opinion with a $ guarantee $. My job is easy. Examine a coin and if I see ANYTHING wrong with it, put it into the computer.
What you or I might consider a problem makes no difference. That's why a coin in a TPGS slab has added protection from a raw coin. Stick a CAC bean on it and that's further protection. That still does not guarantee that folks will agree with the grade on the label. Fortunately, in perhaps 90% of the cases, those who disagree with the label are uninformed about the coin's value, the commercial coin market, or are clinging to obsolete grading standards as I do. As I posted, no one is perfect.
But I loves me them there obsolete grading standards. I still like finding coins that adhere to them. It's funny that I can find far, far more under graded slabbed coins that I can raw. Either dealers don't know how to grade, or I don't. But I don't have to buy.
Hey crew, I thought I would share the observations I obtained from some Hobo Nickel guys at the FUN Show earlier this month. This may not change those post-mint believer's opinions, but make you want to say, hum-m-m-m-m!
HOBO NICKEL CREW OPINION (FUN Show 1/2019)
Spoke to Harry Caldwell. He provided these observations:
He is pretty confident an experienced engraver could have crafted these modified steps. However, he provided several strong arguments that would lean his opinion toward a “mint modified” die trial piece.
To accomplish this level of detail would require an experienced, senior engraver with the required tools and set-up. If an experienced engraver worked on this nickel, why would he/she not bring some notoriety to this work? The coin ended up in an old Blue Whitman Nickel folder with circulated coins.
There was no monetary incentive to spend hours crafting these unique steps on a 1938-S Jefferson. An AU or low MS examples, even with full steps, carries a nominal value.
The even toning and patina on the reverse is consistent throughout. Meaning there is no evidence that metal was engraved in the step area. The line engraving would produce be a very smooth, shinny, machined look. The step surface appearance would look different than the surrounding non-step surfaces. He saw no evident of surface variations in either the appearance or differences in toning.
The weakness and lack of step detail in the center area looks too natural. Meaning, where the heavy and fine lines fade arbitrarily with no pattern present. This seems quite odd for an engraver to plan their design in this way. Why not complete full step lines from left to right with no interruptions?
There were two other Hobo Nickel experts participating in this conversation. They too agreed with the observations above.
Their joint conclusion is the nickel was struck by a modified mint die. Without Mint documentation, one scenario could be a San Francisco die was returned to Philadelphia where a mint employee (or employees) made these modifications and struck a sample piece (or pieces). Think about what was going on between 1938 and 1939. The Mint was in the process of modifying the step design, which ultimately resulted in the straight, well defined steps now known as the “Rev 40” Steps. This modified design shows 3 stronger, well defined lines with a series of smaller, but well defined, steps in-between. This is an interesting test design that ultimately was rejected or was never proposed?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@ICEBOXBERN said:
Bern N. here at invitation of Tom D. to join the postings.
As Tom already noted after he talked to me, I have never seen any Jefferson with a step area like this one discovered by nickeljones.
Some random thoughts:
1. The coin appears to be original, not altered or re-engraved.
2. If this was some sort of random die with a different design, why San Francisco and not Philadelphia? I posited this to Tom when I talked with him and he commented that it could have been accidentally sent to SF - a trial die, punched with the S along with many other working dies being sent to the SF mint. Certainly a possibility.
3. It is documented that the first approved design, after trial production, was modified. There are no known examples of the first trial production, all examples apparently being destroyed. Did a trial working die, with a step design as on the nickeljones coin, survive with a fate as posited by Tom in 2 above?
4. There were a number of submitted designs for the Jefferson Nickel. At least two, those submitted by Henry Kreis and Anthony DeFrancisci, had a reverse with 4 thick, straight steps (that count includes the porch and base step). We know that the mint discarded Schlag's submitted reverse and then apparently screwed around with the other designs resulting in a composite of several designs, giving no credit to the other designs. We don't know how far the "screwing" process went as far as trial dies and so on.
5. Historically speaking, anything is possible when it comes to the US Mint! This could even be a hand modification of a working die by someone with engraving expertise and idle time. After all, this was 1938, the height of the secondary depression of 1938-39 (if you don't know what that refers to, there were two depressions within the "great depression" just look at the mintage figures! - they verify what discerning economists have already concluded.) With the low 1938 mintages, there could have been a lot of idle time at the mints!
6. Seems to me that the first step is to authenticate the coin as genuine and have it in-hand inspected by folks with the necessary expertise like Tom. (Not me - I am not an authenticator!) And as Tom suggested, let's find more examples.
note to Rocco: Thanks for the "awesome" comment but, really, anyone can be an expert by studying lots of coins and then sharing what you learned with others. Next thing you know, some folks think you are some kind of expert!
note to nickeljones: you wondered how your discovery floated around for 79 years and be unknown. Well it can! If you've been around Numismatics awhile, these discoveries happen more frequently than common sense would predict!
Hey Bern! You still there? Any new thoughts?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
The part straight above the left leg of the N in Monticello on the steps (just the part at the left end of steps) looks like a strip that is an over-strike, rather than original strike.
@davewesen said:
The part straight above the left leg of the N in Monticello on the steps (just the part at the left end of steps) looks like a strip that is an over-strike, rather than original strike.
@davewesen said:
The part straight above the left leg of the N in Monticello on the steps (just the part at the left end of steps) looks like a strip that is an over-strike, rather than original strike.
I know, and it greatly troubles me. It looks like a bit of metal sheared off of the left railing and mashed down by the edge of a punch, hypothetically a punch used to emboss new steps onto an existing coin. And why is the right railing so much thinner?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Cap, this area has been questioned by others. Here is my counter thought on that. If a post mint punch was used to impress those steps, why is there no collateral damage seen anywhere else on the coin? This about the perfect alignment and force of strike required to shape nickel alloy. The obverse of the coin is without any deformities, nor is the bent or distorted by such force.
With the evidence compiled, I can only conclude that this coin was struck by mint dies. Or possibly Dan Carr did it and has been waiting for this coin to surface to make a fuss over! Where's Dan?
@BigDowgie said:
Cap, this area has been questioned by others. Here is my counter thought on that. If a post mint punch was used to impress those steps, why is there no collateral damage seen anywhere else on the coin? This about the perfect alignment and force of strike required to shape nickel alloy. The obverse of the coin is without any deformities, nor is the bent or distorted by such force.
With the evidence compiled, I can only conclude that this coin was struck by mint dies. Or possibly Dan Carr did it and has been waiting for this coin to surface to make a fuss over! Where's Dan?
Some time earlier in this thread I postulated that it was a privately-done counter-stamp (NOT by me !). I pointed out as evidence that the railing seen on the right is narrower than the railing on the left. I still think that.
If that is the case, the small total area of the counter-stamp, and the fairly shallow impression of it, would not cause any deformation on the opposite side of the coin (especially if the coin was laid on leather or aluminum when the counter-stamp was applied).
What Dan said. The hypothetical punch was wide and the hypothetical impression was shallow. It would not, in my opinion, have caused any disruption to the obverse.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Hey, you know I love you all and all the feedback, ideas and thoughts that have been shared, but I just cannot wrap my head around the post mint theory. First, the possibility that someone would/could make such a tiny, intricate, detailed punch, second, press or strike (only once?) it into a nickel in what looks to be a pretty precise location, third, with no indication of any significant metal distortion in the steps or the surrounding area on the reverse, the front or bending/indenting of the coin. In conclusion, the person that did this, if post mint, must be quite talented, so why no notoriety for this impressive work of art?
I would love to pay and watch someone do this post mint! How does that song go......if I were a rich man, yadda, yadda, diddle, diddle, diddle, diddle, diddle, dummmm!
@BigDowgie@CaptHenway@ICEBOXBERN@messydesk@Insider2@georgiacop50@leothelyon@davewesen@RogerB
I found a few examples of this just now. Not 1938, but All in the Same year ( year with held ) Proof strike. Not close to 1938
So far I have only found this on one die marriage.
Depending where you count from there are over 7 steps. Several area are tripled and doubled within an area where a single step should be. Some on slight angles. Finding these is enough to confirm my previous idea that the 38 S is from the mint this way.
I wonder if this is some sort of chatter. Or experimental stage or a re engraved reverse step area?
@Aspie_Rocco Are there any signs of slight die doubling anywhere on the reverse?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@CaptHenway said: @Aspie_Rocco Are there any signs of slight die doubling anywhere on the reverse?
@messydesk said:
Check the serifs on the peripheral lettering for doubling. If there is any, it's going to be hard to see anywhere else.
No.
No doubling whatsoever on the reverse of the coin in photo, and none in other examples I located either. This is not a DDR, and there is no ddr for the year I found this on.
@DIMEMAN said:
Looks like the word Monticello has some doubling.
Here are two more images. One of each die marriage I found on this Proof year. One also has the same crazy step action, the other is seemingly normal steps
Note:
The crazy steps are found on Coins with weak reverse strike details.
I'm trying to get an article published on this one. Maybe someone will know something? That would be the hope, as a person or persons did this and had to let someone know!
I'm not sure what to make of the steps from the photos, but if these are proofs, be very careful with optical illusions caused by the reflective surfaces, including the inside of the slab shell. View these with very diffuse, flat light.
Comments
I remember seeing the coin at CSNS this year. I agree with disagreeing with the coin being re-engraved, and completely understand the verdict in the absence of another coin. I also assume that everyone that saw this along its authentication journey is hopeful a corroborating specimen can be found so that they can change their minds, as am I. The motivation for doing this post-mint is fairly obviously to create full step nickels out of those that aren't. If that's the case, however, that attempt failed with this coin, and would have been tried on others of varying dates before either getting it right or giving up. Is this anywhere close to altered full-step coins Jefferson collectors have seen? PM sent with my opinion.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Update request on Page 6 toward the bottom.
Thanks
I was thinking that perhaps this was a type 2 (sharp steps) hubbed over a type 1 (way steps).
But there are two things wrong with this theory:
1) The sharp steps were not generally introduced until part way through the 1939 production. So seeing a sharp-steps hub used on a 1938-S seems unlikely.
2) Why is the step area so much sharper than the surrounding details. And why is the margin at the left end of the steps wider than the margin at the right end of the steps ? On both hubs (wavy and sharp) the margins are equal on both sides.
My opinion is that the coin in question was counter-stamped right on the steps with some small die. Maybe somebody was practicing how to fake full-step nickels ?
Your summary is better worded than mine would have been, but we agree.
I think it's post-mint alteration also.
So did two senior authenticators at two different TPGS's. It's still a very neat coin and I'm hoping we were wrong!
My thinking is a 1940 reverse hubbed over a 1938 hub resulted in the 1939 doubled Monticello
I feel this 1938-S is post minting alteration. The left end of the steps looks to have a raised area near the top half of the non step area. The right end of the steps go further than either type 39 or type 40.
My opinion is a graver (possibly specially made) was used over existing step area, starting in the middle and going both directions towards.
Missed this bump last month. Still looking for the Sister!
With as many suggestions as this may have been an attempt at an altered FS, yet failed; are there examples of altered full step nickles? Seems as if this would be a bit more difficult to produce than split bands on Mercury dimes, full bell lines on Franklin's. Are there known examples? I guess I'm in the dark on this- I'd like to see some altered coins for designations on specified coins before arriving to this conclusion. Do we have any to show?
Also, when did all the hub bub over these designations occur anyway? The toning on this nickle appears older perhaps than before any interest with particular strike designation? IDK. Looks like an even patina/toning both obverse and reverse- not sure if artificial but it looks legit. Could be wrong.
If you're attempting an alteration on a '38-s, I'd think you'd have the art of full steps down with confidence? Why screw up, or, potentially a semi-key date?
I'm neutral on this; but throwing out some questions to consider.
@dcarr wrote: "My opinion is that the coin in question was counter-stamped right on the steps with some small die."
This is exactly my opinion all along As I got to examine the actual coin under magnification. The unaltered coin was weakly struck in the step area. The steps WERE NOT added by a graver!
I am not a FS Jefferson nickel person, but I do engrave dies and do custom engraving on a small scale. The additional steps were not engraved directly onto the coin. The surfaces have not been altered by moving metal horizontally - that is, by pushing it away.
Interesting! Any update on the base of the letters?
I need to go back through and read the posts again. I haven't looked in a while. The opinions are petty evenly split. Without a sister/brother example, this one will never be deemed an official mint issued piece.
then it is an 'overstrike' because of the left end of the 'steps' show original end line
Yes, an overstrike! Just as when I take a punch with tiny little depressions shaped like breast feathers and start "overstriking" the eagle's breast on New Orleans dollars to make them appear strongly struck.
I think "alteration" (for now until proven Mint made) is a more appropriate term.
One of the comments I had sent earlier in a PM had to do with the mystery steps not matching the level of detail or die wear seen on of the rest of the coin. They're way too sharp.
I must now wonder if this attempt was borne from success in making artificial FB Mercury Dimes.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
All depends what you mean by "success." I've worked at five TPGS's and we have never had a dime returned because we missed one with altered bands. That is the first place I look when I turn the coin over under the scope - middle, top and bottom. Additionally, strengthening the line in a band is completely different than adding a complete set of steps.
Success means it was missed by the TPGS and successfully moved into the marketplace, so by the nature of this sort of success, you would never know about it.. You could only do this on coins that were close, otherwise the strike on the rest of the coin would give it away. A fake FB on a 1945 pancake would be easily caught every time, but making a 90% FB coin into FB would be far easier than trying to add steps to a nickel. Success making FB Mercs might make you cocky enough to try making artificial steps.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Trust me on this one. When a coin leaves a TPGS it is seen by hundreds of wannabes who wish to prove they know more than the TPGS professionals. THAT'S A VERY GOOD THING (added protection) as no one is perfect.
Therefore, if any TPGS where I ever worked was unsuccessful catching such an OBVIOUS way to increase the value of a dime, we would have heard about it! In 45+ years, I can only remember seeing one such alteration that took more than 2 sec. to detect using florescent light and a low power scope. As I recall, I zoomed the power up to aprox. 12-14X to reveal the bands were altered. Even the alterations that are etched to hide the fresh surface are easy to detect.
BTW, we believed that one deceptive alteration was done by "the Master." We named him that because he had to be the same person using a stereo microscope to add the flow lines up the side of added mintmarks!
PS Messy
You know how easy it is for you to detect a 1921 IRE $? That's the same for me and altered dime bands.
@Insider2 said " THAT'S A VERY GOOD THING (added protection) as no one is perfect." That includes JA...right??
This would be the easiest one with which to find success. Mercury FB, Jefferson FS, then Franklin FL.
The part of my post that you took out of context applies to the buyers and sellers in the coin market who examine the coin after it is graded. That is the added protection to keep the TPGS on their toes.
As to your question about JA, yes, it includes everyone.
HOWEVER what you need to understand after mentioning JA and anyone else, Not everyone has the same grading standards or opinion of what is market acceptable or not. I don't need to make the determinations required of a finalizer or TPGS owner who backs up their opinion with a $ guarantee $. My job is easy. Examine a coin and if I see ANYTHING wrong with it, put it into the computer.
What you or I might consider a problem makes no difference. That's why a coin in a TPGS slab has added protection from a raw coin. Stick a CAC bean on it and that's further protection. That still does not guarantee that folks will agree with the grade on the label. Fortunately, in perhaps 90% of the cases, those who disagree with the label are uninformed about the coin's value, the commercial coin market, or are clinging to obsolete grading standards as I do. As I posted, no one is perfect.
But I loves me them there obsolete grading standards. I still like finding coins that adhere to them. It's funny that I can find far, far more under graded slabbed coins that I can raw. Either dealers don't know how to grade, or I don't. But I don't have to buy.
Hey crew, I thought I would share the observations I obtained from some Hobo Nickel guys at the FUN Show earlier this month. This may not change those post-mint believer's opinions, but make you want to say, hum-m-m-m-m!
HOBO NICKEL CREW OPINION (FUN Show 1/2019)
Spoke to Harry Caldwell. He provided these observations:
He is pretty confident an experienced engraver could have crafted these modified steps. However, he provided several strong arguments that would lean his opinion toward a “mint modified” die trial piece.
To accomplish this level of detail would require an experienced, senior engraver with the required tools and set-up. If an experienced engraver worked on this nickel, why would he/she not bring some notoriety to this work? The coin ended up in an old Blue Whitman Nickel folder with circulated coins.
There was no monetary incentive to spend hours crafting these unique steps on a 1938-S Jefferson. An AU or low MS examples, even with full steps, carries a nominal value.
The even toning and patina on the reverse is consistent throughout. Meaning there is no evidence that metal was engraved in the step area. The line engraving would produce be a very smooth, shinny, machined look. The step surface appearance would look different than the surrounding non-step surfaces. He saw no evident of surface variations in either the appearance or differences in toning.
The weakness and lack of step detail in the center area looks too natural. Meaning, where the heavy and fine lines fade arbitrarily with no pattern present. This seems quite odd for an engraver to plan their design in this way. Why not complete full step lines from left to right with no interruptions?
There were two other Hobo Nickel experts participating in this conversation. They too agreed with the observations above.
Their joint conclusion is the nickel was struck by a modified mint die. Without Mint documentation, one scenario could be a San Francisco die was returned to Philadelphia where a mint employee (or employees) made these modifications and struck a sample piece (or pieces). Think about what was going on between 1938 and 1939. The Mint was in the process of modifying the step design, which ultimately resulted in the straight, well defined steps now known as the “Rev 40” Steps. This modified design shows 3 stronger, well defined lines with a series of smaller, but well defined, steps in-between. This is an interesting test design that ultimately was rejected or was never proposed?
This update popped down the list pretty quick. Let me know what you think about the Hobo Nickel guy's opinion.
Thanks for the update.
TD
Hey Bern! You still there? Any new thoughts?
interesting, the weakness in the middle helps their argument
Fascinating !
Thanks for bring this back to the first page BigDowgie, I would likely have missed it had you not.
I like this photo step comparison.
The part straight above the left leg of the N in Monticello on the steps (just the part at the left end of steps) looks like a strip that is an over-strike, rather than original strike.
That area deserves some scrutiny for sure.
I know, and it greatly troubles me. It looks like a bit of metal sheared off of the left railing and mashed down by the edge of a punch, hypothetically a punch used to emboss new steps onto an existing coin. And why is the right railing so much thinner?
Cap, this area has been questioned by others. Here is my counter thought on that. If a post mint punch was used to impress those steps, why is there no collateral damage seen anywhere else on the coin? This about the perfect alignment and force of strike required to shape nickel alloy. The obverse of the coin is without any deformities, nor is the bent or distorted by such force.
With the evidence compiled, I can only conclude that this coin was struck by mint dies. Or possibly Dan Carr did it and has been waiting for this coin to surface to make a fuss over! Where's Dan?
Some time earlier in this thread I postulated that it was a privately-done counter-stamp (NOT by me !). I pointed out as evidence that the railing seen on the right is narrower than the railing on the left. I still think that.
If that is the case, the small total area of the counter-stamp, and the fairly shallow impression of it, would not cause any deformation on the opposite side of the coin (especially if the coin was laid on leather or aluminum when the counter-stamp was applied).
Dan, many thanks for the follow-up comments!
What Dan said. The hypothetical punch was wide and the hypothetical impression was shallow. It would not, in my opinion, have caused any disruption to the obverse.
Hey, you know I love you all and all the feedback, ideas and thoughts that have been shared, but I just cannot wrap my head around the post mint theory. First, the possibility that someone would/could make such a tiny, intricate, detailed punch, second, press or strike (only once?) it into a nickel in what looks to be a pretty precise location, third, with no indication of any significant metal distortion in the steps or the surrounding area on the reverse, the front or bending/indenting of the coin. In conclusion, the person that did this, if post mint, must be quite talented, so why no notoriety for this impressive work of art?
With all the info provided I tend to agree with you Mike that it was done at the mint and not post mint damage/work.
I would love to pay and watch someone do this post mint! How does that song go......if I were a rich man, yadda, yadda, diddle, diddle, diddle, diddle, diddle, dummmm!
@BigDowgie @CaptHenway @ICEBOXBERN @messydesk @Insider2 @georgiacop50 @leothelyon @davewesen @RogerB
I found a few examples of this just now. Not 1938, but All in the Same year ( year with held ) Proof strike. Not close to 1938
So far I have only found this on one die marriage.
Depending where you count from there are over 7 steps. Several area are tripled and doubled within an area where a single step should be. Some on slight angles. Finding these is enough to confirm my previous idea that the 38 S is from the mint this way.
I wonder if this is some sort of chatter. Or experimental stage or a re engraved reverse step area?
http://www.pcgs.com/SetRegistry/publishedset.aspx?s=142753
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
nice aspie, or the result of 3 strikes
@Aspie_Rocco Are there any signs of slight die doubling anywhere on the reverse?
Looks like the word Monticello has some doubling.
Check the serifs on the peripheral lettering for doubling. If there is any, it's going to be hard to see anywhere else.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
No.
No doubling whatsoever on the reverse of the coin in photo, and none in other examples I located either. This is not a DDR, and there is no ddr for the year I found this on.
That is reflected light on the Proof surface
http://www.pcgs.com/SetRegistry/publishedset.aspx?s=142753
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
Here are two more images. One of each die marriage I found on this Proof year. One also has the same crazy step action, the other is seemingly normal steps
Note:
The crazy steps are found on Coins with weak reverse strike details.
http://www.pcgs.com/SetRegistry/publishedset.aspx?s=142753
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
Are we looking through plastic at your coin Rocco?
I'm just catching up on these posts. Very interesting Rocco! You will have to reveal the date at some point! I gotta get looking!
I'm trying to get an article published on this one. Maybe someone will know something? That would be the hope, as a person or persons did this and had to let someone know!
I will go as far as to say the coins I found are in Pcgs holders with modest to high grades.
http://www.pcgs.com/SetRegistry/publishedset.aspx?s=142753
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
I'm not sure what to make of the steps from the photos, but if these are proofs, be very careful with optical illusions caused by the reflective surfaces, including the inside of the slab shell. View these with very diffuse, flat light.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution