Tremendous thanks to Mike for offering this spectacular 61d to me. After a short conversation I’m extremely happy to announce that I’ve bought it and will be adding it to my collection. It’s always a pleasure to talk to and deal with someone as nice and knowledgeable as Mike.
PS. If anyone thinks that the steps aren’t “all there” I challenge you to find a better example and I’ll be happy to buy it as well
just so I'm understood, I can certainly understand a collector wanting this coin for their collection and being willing to pay what they think is a fair price for it. I am only trying to explain what my understanding of the criteria for the FULL STEP designation is as outlined by PCGS in their Grading/Counterfeit Detection book.
to the new owner's point of the steps being " all there" I will only say --- no, not according to the PCGS definition, they are not. the picture is clear enough for me, detail won't appear because the coin is tilted and contacts won't disappear. further, just because the coin has detail which no other coin of the same date/mm has, the designation isn't justified.
--- this is why I sold my FS collection and have never looked back.
--- in the end all that matters is that the owner of the coin is satisfied with it.
FS should actually be FS right?
I have to agree with keets on this one and please don't give me a negative for what I'm about to say...that coin would not get the FS designation ATS.
@MACGE1 knows his FS nickels and their values so im sure he paid what he thinks its worth.
That said, I do agree fully with Keets that just because the strikes or dies for these years dont come with FS is no reason to lower the standard.
Personally I feel it is completely wrong for the grading services to have different standards for key dates vs non key dates for grading. In fact, this is what has been killing so many values lately- the standards dropping off the cliffs from only 4-5 years ago when I learned to grade.
I remember a 1911 $20 that I came across in a ngc ms65 holder. I graded the coin lock ms66. I submitted it to pcgs multiple times only getting it in a pcgs ms65 holder and eventually sticker at cac (a big jump still).
I approached one of my friends whom is an ex pcgs grader and was told the standard is very warped for such coins like P mint $20's (and countless other dates/grades/series) and that when placed next to a regular ms65 saint, the rarer coin must grade something like ms66 minimum by common standards just to be awarded an ms65. Only an ms67 common date might pass for 65+/66 rare date. This is in my opinion completely off.
Same when I bought a 1889-cc $1 pcgs ms63 PL that i graded lock ms64+ PL. While I got it to CAC pcgs kept calling it ms63.
I showed it around next to an ms65 1889 regular date and asked which was nicer. Some said the cc some said the regular 89. When the grade was revealed on the cc it just made people scratch their heads.
If the coin is not FS it should not be given the designation. Does that mean a hole will be in everyone's collection for the date? Perhaps but thats just how things are
@BigDowgie said:
TPRC, "well struck" and "full steps" are two different aspects, correct? While this is a well struck 1961-D example with super detail, the steps (from the picture) are not even close for consideration to be full steps. A few quick notes: the bottom step does not even exist except to the far right and left, there are 2 deep hits under pillar 3 and plenty of spots where it looks like no steps lines are present. Just my opinion.
I agree with you, but it is in a PC 64FS holder and was auctioned at the Baltimore show last year, where it was passed at an 8k reserve. It is not my coin, but the OPs coin looks to be far superior from a strike standpoint. Hard to see the coin I posted as FS.
Congrats. While I am not a fan of the designation, one has to take the designation in stride. And for the date, I suspect your pictured coin is about as good as they come. A Full Portico designation makes more sense than Full Steps even though I am likely the only person who believes in change.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@MACGE1 said:
Tremendous thanks to Mike for offering this spectacular 61d to me. After a short conversation I’m extremely happy to announce that I’ve bought it and will be adding it to my collection. It’s always a pleasure to talk to and deal with someone as nice and knowledgeable as Mike.
PS. If anyone thinks that the steps aren’t “all there” I challenge you to find a better example and I’ll be happy to buy it as well
Here are a couple pics I did for this coin for you. Free of charge!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
Comments
Tremendous thanks to Mike for offering this spectacular 61d to me. After a short conversation I’m extremely happy to announce that I’ve bought it and will be adding it to my collection. It’s always a pleasure to talk to and deal with someone as nice and knowledgeable as Mike.
PS. If anyone thinks that the steps aren’t “all there” I challenge you to find a better example and I’ll be happy to buy it as well
just so I'm understood, I can certainly understand a collector wanting this coin for their collection and being willing to pay what they think is a fair price for it. I am only trying to explain what my understanding of the criteria for the FULL STEP designation is as outlined by PCGS in their Grading/Counterfeit Detection book.
to the new owner's point of the steps being " all there" I will only say --- no, not according to the PCGS definition, they are not. the picture is clear enough for me, detail won't appear because the coin is tilted and contacts won't disappear. further, just because the coin has detail which no other coin of the same date/mm has, the designation isn't justified.
--- this is why I sold my FS collection and have never looked back.
--- in the end all that matters is that the owner of the coin is satisfied with it.
FS should actually be FS right?
I have to agree with keets on this one and please don't give me a negative for what I'm about to say...that coin would not get the FS designation ATS.
It is a heck of a coin BD, close but no cigar in my book.
@MACGE1 knows his FS nickels and their values so im sure he paid what he thinks its worth.
That said, I do agree fully with Keets that just because the strikes or dies for these years dont come with FS is no reason to lower the standard.
Personally I feel it is completely wrong for the grading services to have different standards for key dates vs non key dates for grading. In fact, this is what has been killing so many values lately- the standards dropping off the cliffs from only 4-5 years ago when I learned to grade.
I remember a 1911 $20 that I came across in a ngc ms65 holder. I graded the coin lock ms66. I submitted it to pcgs multiple times only getting it in a pcgs ms65 holder and eventually sticker at cac (a big jump still).
I approached one of my friends whom is an ex pcgs grader and was told the standard is very warped for such coins like P mint $20's (and countless other dates/grades/series) and that when placed next to a regular ms65 saint, the rarer coin must grade something like ms66 minimum by common standards just to be awarded an ms65. Only an ms67 common date might pass for 65+/66 rare date. This is in my opinion completely off.
Same when I bought a 1889-cc $1 pcgs ms63 PL that i graded lock ms64+ PL. While I got it to CAC pcgs kept calling it ms63.
I showed it around next to an ms65 1889 regular date and asked which was nicer. Some said the cc some said the regular 89. When the grade was revealed on the cc it just made people scratch their heads.
If the coin is not FS it should not be given the designation. Does that mean a hole will be in everyone's collection for the date? Perhaps but thats just how things are
I agree with you, but it is in a PC 64FS holder and was auctioned at the Baltimore show last year, where it was passed at an 8k reserve. It is not my coin, but the OPs coin looks to be far superior from a strike standpoint. Hard to see the coin I posted as FS.
Tom
MACGE1, It has been a pleasure feeding that itch! Hope we get an opportunity to meet somewhere, sometime!
Thanks
Congrats. While I am not a fan of the designation, one has to take the designation in stride. And for the date, I suspect your pictured coin is about as good as they come. A Full Portico designation makes more sense than Full Steps even though I am likely the only person who believes in change.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Here are a couple pics I did for this coin for you. Free of charge!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Hey Leo, long time man! Pretty cool you still have those stored away. How long ago did we do these, 8+ years?
Hope all is well!