Options
I STILL dont know what Full steps mean
joebb21
Posts: 4,769 ✭✭✭✭✭
Ive made some big Jeffs in my career including many pop 1's or pop 2's. But Full steps Im just not sure
may the fonz be with you...always...
1
Comments
IIRC, none of the gem 53-S 5th steps are complete to the right edge. Not sure any of the FS coins do.
From what I remember back when I was collecting Jefferson Nickels...the rules change depending on the date.
Third step second column is not even close. They have been consistently inconsistent on these for 20 years.
Boy you got that right. It’s funny that (Full steps) are not (Full steps) 🤪
jeffersonnickel.org/full-steps-jefferson-nickels/
If that is the case....it's all wrong! They are either all there or not. Same with FB Dimes. Close but no cigar does not count.
The coin in the OP is not close to FS to me. But for as mushy as the strike is on the coin.....the steps are pretty nice!
This is a great example of buy (or in this case pass) the coin not the holder. I dont care if its PCGS or NGC with or without CAC or any other brand holder. Its all about educating yourself about the coins that matter to you.
Full steps and full bell lines are the two most abused designations in all of numismatics.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Especially if you are the seller.
You say that you "Still don't know what full steps mean." That makes you a member of the club and in good standing. Been collecting those babies since ' 66, and I still don't know either. Don't give it a second thought. It will only drive you crazy. Because the truth is.......full steps doesn't mean a thing. NOTHING. Take it to the bank.
As Dr. Seuss might have said;
"I HAVE NOT A CLUE. DO YOU?"
I understand FS, FBL, and FB to be the grading company’s opinion rather then a fact.
BINGO!!!!!!
Proofs are handy if you insist on full steps. Otherwise ?
This is the biggest problem I have with full steps, fbl, fh etc, some dates are considered differently to a degree on whether or not to assign the designation based on what exists /and how they were struck for that particular date/coin.
IMO, it should be cut and dry, either it is or it isn't, and if a particular date doesn't exsist in say FS, then so be it.
"I STILL dont know what Full steps mean."
Neither do some of the services. Check out the auction archives from Heritage, GC, Stacks-Bowers, and others.
The deep ticks that cross the steps would keep me from buying it as FS if I collected the series.
Did you just make this? Congratulations!
sometimes it means an increase of value by 1000x
Hmmm, Maybe I'm just too tough but I see a 64 tops no FS
Steve
I do not see FS on that nickel.... I magnified the image to be sure, and clearly, that is not FS.....That is the problem with 'standards' in numismatics.... There are NO standards.....Having spent my career in industries with real standards, it is highly irritating to hear the term used referring to coins. Cheers, RickO
This is the biggest problem I have with full steps, fbl, fh etc, some dates are considered differently to a degree on whether or not to assign the designation based on what exists /and how they were struck for that particular date/coin
I would not defend this statement or the correctness with PCGS doing that, I would just point out that they do it with pretty much all US coinage. a good example is mid-1920's Branch Mint Buffalo Nickels.
I'm no expert but with a lot of magnification it doesn't seem like it to me.
Sadly, it's better than some...
The requirement I've understood over a long time is very simple:
The horizontal division between all adjacent steps must be complete from left to right end; and, there can be no damage which would interrupt any division.
There are no modifications or exceptions for one date/mint or another. (The example posted by dri3ree is not "full steps." In that photo there are only 2 complete step divisions - the upper most 2 steps.) If none are known, then that is what it is.
Totally agree!
Dimeman| I agree. If the steps are important-as they are to many-it is important for one to closely examine these coins themselves along with using the slab grade, if slabbed as a guide only, then be their own finalizer. A lot of inconsistancy along with 'gradeflation' with this series. Coins are not politics for I have heard in the past that being close did indeed get a cigar!
Exactly, REALGATOR. IDK if the coin in the OP's photo is the same piece, but a high graded -53-S certified full steps sold in a recent auction-last evening for some BIG Money.
Is that another Clinton joke?!
RogerB: I fully agree. Simple, the problem is that the 'requirements' just seem to be ignored. A quick glance of random Jeffs certified FS is proof enough for me. The prices of what some of the tougher 'FS' pieces have been bringing at auctions tend to show that a few people don't seem to care. All I can say, is it is me laying out multiple thousands on a FS coin, I DO care!
I use to think that it was the coin grading companies fault for allowing such flawed coins to pass the grades they assign them to. But they don't send/submit all the low quality of coins they have to deal with. I'm certain, for quite some time, they would assign proper grades for such ill-struck/designless/mushy detailed coins. But such coins were sent back in for regrades, time after time, and having to crack out such coins on a repetitive basis, they would finally cave in/throw their hands up and give those collectors/dealers/submitters what they wanted. Go look at the kind of nickels the billionaire D. Hansen is buying for his collection. While most of those coins have strike problems, he could be getting better coins for his buck, that is, _** if **_ the coin collecting community was sending in/up better coins in to be graded/if they,as a whole, were sitting the standards higher.
For now, it is what it is and it's never going to change or get better as long as whatever the quality of coin is being accepted by the majority of both the sellers and buyers in a constant/continually exchanged of transactions in today's market. (did I say that right?)
In my opinion, demands for a higher quality coin to be collected comes from within a collector. I've found it an impossible endeavor getting everyone on the same bandwagon. I wanted all my coins to have the best details, condition and steps I could find them in. For those who don't know, the upper right coin in the following link was my coin before the High Desert collection bought it from me. That guy has the best struck, condition and steps in a 53-S to own. https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1953-s-5c-fs/84051
Bottom line; D Hansen could be buying higher quality coins for his Jefferson nickels if he wanted to but this series pales in recognition with the better established rarities in older series. So...we can't take away anything in that respect.
And no, I've decided long ago, I'm not wasting my money by throwing my coins into the mess there is. I'll just wait until that collector comes along who appreciates quality.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
The collectors who want honest, consistent coin grading and evaluation MUST insist on strict observation of the rules. To do less cheapens the significance of coins that are the "real thing" and misleads collectors of Jefferson nickels overall.
I have a MS66 6FS and I can clearly see them all under 5X magnification. I've posted this article before on other forums.
http://jeffersonnickel.org/full-steps-jefferson-nickels/