Is this 1961 a full step ?

CoinRaz24 · March 13, 2025 2:13PM

So I’m new to this entire world, I happened to just look through some of my father in laws coins and came across this. Can anyone let me know is it just a cool looking coin or is there something here? He told me he saves it because it has nice coloring on it…. Tell me what you guys think?

ai

World67 · March 13, 2025 2:21PM

JBK · March 13, 2025 2:29PM

Is that a proof nickel? If so, I don't believe FS are a thing.

jfriedm56 · March 13, 2025 2:30PM

Gee whiz, is that a proof where ALL have full steps?

CoinRaz24 · March 13, 2025 2:36PM

How can you tell it’s proof? He got proof sets that look totally different this coin is according to him from a bankroll back in the 70’s

jonathanb · March 13, 2025 2:59PM

@CoinRaz24 said:
How can you tell it’s proof?

If it quacks like a duck... I'm sorry, but that really is the answer. Those pictures show a proof coin.

He got proof sets that look totally different this coin is according to him from a bankroll back in the 70’s

Take a coin from a proof set and put it in a roll. Now give the roll to someone else, and that person has a proof coin they found in a roll.

"Proof" is a description of how the coin was manufactured. Anything can happen after manufacturing.

It's noteworthy to find proof coins in rolls, in the " huh look at that" sense. It's far from unheard-of, though.

dcarr · March 13, 2025 3:04PM

Yes, it looks like it has 6 full steps. It is also a proof, and it is not at all unusual for a proof to have 100% full steps.
However, some proofs only have 5 full steps (which is still considered "full steps" for the most part).

MsMorrisine · March 13, 2025 5:04PM

forgive the horrible and rude replies

from pcgs' glossary

https://www.pcgs.com/lingo/p

Proof

A coin usually struck from a specially prepared coin die on a specially prepared planchet. Proofs are usually given more than one blow from the dies and are usually struck with presses operating at slower speeds and higher striking pressure. Because of this extra care, Proofs usually exhibit much sharper detail than regular, or business, strikes. PCGS recognizes Proofs (PR) as those struck in 1817 and later. Those coins struck prior to 1817 are recognized as Specimen strikes (SP).

https://www.pcgs.com/lingo/b

business strike

A regular issue coin, struck on regular planchets by dies given normal preparation. These are the coins struck for commerce that the Mint places into circulation.

===

the below are from pcgs' coinfacts https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts

here is a 1961 business/circulation strike
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1961-5c/4069

the above with full steps
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1961-5c-fs/84069

here is a 1961 proof strike
pics https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1961-5c/images/4193
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1961-5c/4193

the proof in deep cameo
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1961-5c-dcam/94193

===

there are coins with colors in there, some look better than others. in my opinion, yours is brown and splotchy. not my favorite. but you collect what you like

and then there is the end of "AMERICA" with the disappearing letters, plus the very weak columns. these also make it less desirable

HOWEVER!

YOU AND YOUR GRANDFATHER GO ON AND KEEP LOVING IT

want something to remember grandfather? here's one.

MsMorrisine · March 13, 2025 5:18PM

Full Steps

Term applied to a Jefferson five-cent example when at least 5 steps of Monticello are present.

here is a 1961 Proof that is Not full steps

an there's that mark above the C

do note in coinfacts, there is no designation for fs/not-fs on the proof page

jesbroken · March 13, 2025 6:17PM

To give you an example of the difference. Here is an example of a BU 1961 Jefferson Nickel and a closeup of the steps, one of the better speciman's that CoinFacts has to offer. This is why they are so valuable.
Jim

dcarr · March 13, 2025 8:28PM

@MsMorrisine said:
Full Steps

Term applied to a Jefferson five-cent example when at least 5 steps of Monticello are present.

here is a 1961 Proof that is Not full steps

an there's that mark above the C

do note in coinfacts, there is no designation for fs/not-fs on the proof page

.

The nicks are small. The larger one (to the left) only affects the far end of the 6th step. The other one is a planchet crease that wasn't struck out and I wouldn't consider it as interrupting the steps as it is so thin.
So I think this coin would still be considered at least 5 full steps.

.

Clackamas1 · March 14, 2025 1:57AM

It is but on proofs they all have full steps. It is a good example of what a circ coin could be struck like at it's very best.

davewesen · March 14, 2025 11:28AM

You might have some monor double dies going on (or it could be the reflection from the 2x2. The obverse has Liberty and date region looking odd. The reverse has odd lettering thickness. The FIVE in FIVE CENTS is thick compared to the periphery letters. The pillars on Monticello do not seem to be there. It almost looks like there is 7 steps. If you are bored, you could take out of 2x2 and look at closely with a magnifier and compare to those shown at varietyvista

varietyvista.com/04b%20JN%20DD%20Vol%202/index.htm

Is this 1961 a full step ?

Comments

here is a 1961 Proof that is Not full steps

an there's that mark above the C

do note in coinfacts, there is no designation for fs/not-fs on the proof page

here is a 1961 Proof that is Not full steps

an there's that mark above the C

do note in coinfacts, there is no designation for fs/not-fs on the proof page

Leave a Comment

Categories