lehigh96

I recently added a PCGS graded coin, 1958 Jefferson Nickel MS65FS to my collection and it was approved by NGC, but in my set it appears as an MS65 without the FS (Full Step) designation.  The certification number of the coin is 45611994.  The points allocation is 288 and should be 1707, please make the necessary adjustment, thank you.

Paul

On 9/8/2022 at 6:04 PM, VKurtB said:

Excellent choice!

Here is a pretty one!

As a collector of Danish 25 Ore, I will go with Denmark.

On 8/12/2022 at 7:36 PM, Simple Collector said:

I have a set of supposed submission numbers for this hoard. I do not recall where I got them and they may or may not be correct.  I have 291239, 291240, 291279, 271281, 207335 and 207281. Based on the dash numbers, I have seen coins that are as high as 046 against one submission number. I am also not sure if it was ever determined how many submitters there may have been.

The first 4 submission numbers are the original Appalachian Hoard which were all holdered in generation 8 NGC slabs that were only used in August/September of 2000.  The submission numbers starting with 207 were submitted later and all reside in later slabs.  Legend has it that the second submission showed evidence of the use of mesh to submerge the coins in an aqueous solution during the AT process.  I have only ever owned two of these coins.  One of them looked like an original Appalachian, the other looked hinky and had that mesh pattern on the reverse.  Both are shown below.

On 8/13/2022 at 7:37 PM, CoffeeTime said:

Did I read this correctly , that they are marketing these as the AT find but are not providing any attribution?  I could have read this wrong. Other than the novelty, how will this be “valued” in a few years?  It not the Titanic or another famous wreck. 

I don't know what you mean by "marketing these as AT" but the value of the Appalachians has remained consistently high despite all of the AT allegations for decades.  Unlike the Peacock IKEs, NGC has never disavowed the Appalachian Hoard, and I have seen some even crossed into PCGS holders for the FS designation (see link below).

 1945-S 5C MS67+ Full Steps PCGS.

On 8/12/2022 at 6:24 PM, VKurtB said:

Oh boy, if you suggest to Lehigh that the App hoard nickels are AT, he may have an aneurism right there at his screen. 

Aneurism?  No!  People have been calling the Appalachian Jefferson Nickels AT since they appeared on the market in 2000.  In fact, Bob Campbell (the ANA President 2001-2003 not Robec) made a grading video where he specifically called out the Appalachians as AT in his tutorial.  I simply disagree with the assertion that they are AT.  I have owned dozens of these coins over the years, and none of them looked hinky in hand, none of them have ever turned, and I have seen other war nickels with similar color schemes, just not as vibrant as most of the Appalachians.

On 8/12/2022 at 5:37 PM, VKurtB said:

Yup, Lehigh96. His normal haunt is CoinTalk. He’s a “true believer” on the virtue of extreme toning. He cheered my ban from CT literally because I prefer white coins. 

I did not, you were a hoot, I loved having you around.  I know you preferred white coins, but IIRC, you loved the 1960's toned proof Jefferson Nickels from the cellophane packs.

I had an unattributed 1955-D/S Jefferson Nickel in my collection for a long time (see photo below).

Last year, I submitted the coin to NGC for the variety attribution only.  The coin received the variety attribution and was re-holdered under the original certification number (see photo below).

All of that is fine, but in my registry set, the coin is not reflected as a 1955-D/S and still only has the 366 registry points instead of the 2614 for the variety

Just now, VKurtB said:

Yup, this’ll happen to a guy who intentionally stopped learning anything some 35 years ago.

Posts like this are why I miss you over there.  That said, he is not the omnipresent slinger of misinformation that he once was.

On 1/1/2021 at 10:32 AM, physics-fan3.14 said:

This has been treated with a substance called "MS-70." 

It is highly controversial, and a quick search of this site or of google should show you why. 

However, coins with this look are very often slabbed, so it is no surprise. 

This was my initial impression as well.

11 hours ago, VKurtB said:

Then ‘splain to me why Doug insists that mirrored proofs have full luster. Mirrors don’t DO luster. 

Well, like you, I don't even think of luster when talking about proof coins, so I will amend my statement to say that Doug's understanding of luster on "business strike" coins is correct.  That said, he is wrong so often that this falls under the category of "a broken clock is correct twice a day."

15 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

So what do you think causes the differences between those 1908-S's I posted above....and a pretty bland 1924 Saint ?

The toning on the 1908-S is what you would typically see on a gold coin where the color starts to change from bright gold to more of an orange gold.  The rainbow toned 1924 is something else entirely, and despite Roger's insistence to the contrary, it is believed that improper alloy mixture where the concentration of copper is higher at the surface allows for the dramatic toning.  I checked the phase diagram for AU-CU and it says that gold forms a solid solution with copper at all concentrations at most temperatures, which indicates to me that the culprit would be diffusion of the copper atoms towards the surface.  I have a degree in metallurgy that I haven't used in many years, but it should seem reasonable to everyone that it is the copper in the alloy that is the driving force behind the toning on gold coins in the absence of impurities.

4 hours ago, VKurtB said:

Now try to explain that concept to the Chief Moderator over at CT. He still doesn’t understand it.

Huh?  As someone who has spent countless hours arguing with Doug about his numismatic lunacy, this is one topic he does understand, and he always uses the same simple diagram to show it /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

As for color on gold, it has long been accepted that insufficient alloy mixture, particularly at the surface was the cause.

On 6/19/2021 at 7:16 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Both Jefferson Nickels. Both with the same date. Both with the same Denver mint mark. Both with Full Steps...

Three questions: 

Both graded identically by two different TPGS? 

A PCGS Certification Number exceeding 90 million! Since when? Where are all the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's?

And finally, if not "wear," would anyone who hasn't commented (precluding the possibility of contradiction or "axe to grind") care to explain precisely when "wear" becomes "weak strike," or vice versa? 

[For the purposes of this impertinent informational interrogatory, let's all pretend Q.A. is an honorary member of the "Show Me" state.

Go ahead, I'm all ears.

The 1941-D is the quintessential type coin for the series.  It is extremely common in MS67, Full Steps, and with attractive toning.  The current population reports are: 

NGC MS67 5FS:  104/9 with 2 star designations

NGC MS67 6FS:  99/2 with 4 star designations

PCGS MS67FS:  290/6 with 46 + designations

I don't understand your second question, and your third question is irrelevant to this thread since neither coin has any wear or weak strike.

Denmark 25 Ore Denomination Sets

Christian X (with hole) 1924-1947

2797546-076, 2697065-026, 2801358-078, 2697065-027

Crowned Monogram (no hole) 1948-1967

2714206-238, 2709110-141

Thank you,

Paul

14 hours ago, GoldFinger1969 said:

What about a "tracker" that lets you see the various stages from Delivery Accepted to Coins Mailed Back ?  A 5 or 6 or 7 bar indicator that progresses from left-to-right.  Very simple.  Very easy to construct on the website and have updated. 

UPS, USPS, FedX, Amazon, etc. -- they all have it.  Not sure why NGC and/or PCGS don't have this feature.

PCGS does have that, their stages are as follows:  Arrived--Received--Grading--Encapsulation--Quality Check--Shipped--Delivered

NGC has a similar updating system that allows you to see the current status, but they don't have an indicator bar like your are referencing.

12 hours ago, Lem E said:

Here are a couple of mine. These look familiar @lehigh96 ?

A gorgeous Appalachian and my 42-D 6 stepper, loved those two coins.  I don't know if I ever told you the story about how that 42-D became available, but if I have, I'm sure it is news to the other followers of this thread.  I started my Jefferson Nickel registry collection back in 2008 and that 42-D 67 6FS was one of the first coins that I obtained.  Simultaneously, I was assembling an Intercept Shield album collection, but eBay was a minefield back then and the photos were exponentially worse than they are now (and they aren't good now).  Buying raw coins was near impossible so I resorted to buying MS66 graded coins and cracking them out (see photos below).

So that coin sat in my album for over a decade.  In 2019, I started buying completed album collections, breaking them up, and selling them off piece by piece and submitting anything that had a chance at MS67.  I ran into an premium gem 42-D that had a rim ding that was severe enough that I thought it might get bagged so I decided to place that coin in my album and sell the NGC MS66 that was already in the album.  After removing and photographing the coin, I was perplexed (see photos below).

I was certain that what was residing in that spot was supposed to be an MS66, but what was staring at me was one of the most lustrous Jefferson Nickels that I had ever seen.  In addition, the coin looked MS67 all day long, and the step detail certainly looked like it had a shot.  Since the coin was originally in an NGC Old Fatty holder and was graded prior to the inception of the 5FS designation, it was certainly possible that this was a full step coin that just wasn't designated as such.  After some thought, I decided that this coin was easily an MS67 by both NGC & PCGS standards, but that it had a much better shot at FS by sending it to PCGS, so that is what I did, knowing full well that it would become my registry coin.

Not tying to be negative, but it is about time, PCGS has had this feature for some time.  When you send a company thousands of dollars worth of coins and the PO says its been delivered, it causes great anxiety when you have to wait up to two weeks before you see any evidence that your coins are actually safe and secure.  This new feature should alleviate said anxiety, thank you!