Jefferson Nickel Reverse Full Step Photo's Review

[Smilie Puss]

Below are photo's of Jefferson nickel's reverse for 1938 and 1940. Top lighting was by LED ring (bluish) and halogen (yellowish).

 

Key to identify the reverse used is in the step edge lines and at the step ends where they abut the end blocks.

 

The '40' steps are relatively straight, parallel, thiner, and with good step depth difinition, where as, the '38' steps are wave like, irregular and heaver. Step edge lines sometimes have poor step difinition .

 

Step and column measurements can be viewed on the photo's

 

The '40' has an incuse vertical line where the steps abut the end block and the '38' taper into the end blocks. I think this is the best key to identify.

 

Measurement from the bottom of the first step to the top of the sixth step is about 0.469 mm for the '38' reverse and 0.475mm for the '40' reverse. The modern nickels measure about 0.452 mm.

 

Image Calibration Standard Dot 0.6 mm Verification

1940 5C '40' Rev. PR64FS(6) Image Left Side Top Light halogen & LED

1940 5C '40' Rev Center

1940 5C '40 Rev image Right side

 

For comparison of LED Ring Light and no Halogen Light on a 2006 FS Nickel

2006 5C Image Left Side

2006 5C Image Right Side

 

Finally the 1938 Reverse Top Light Halogen only

 

1939 5C '38' Rev MS67FS(5) Image Left Side

1939 5C '38' Rev MS67FS(5) Image Right Side

 

Well Wa Da Ya Tink? Have I mastered the Photo Import Test? (thumbs u

 

 

 

[WoodenJefferson]

You may have "mastered the Photo Import Test" but your timing is still off, it took you 8 hours to add the images to your thread. You lost a lot of initial lookers because they had nothing to see but your learning.

 

Original Post: 02/15/09 06:00 PM

 

Edited by itsnowtoo@aol.com (02/16/09 02:05 AM) images added

 

 

 

You show a 1940 5C '40' Rev. PR64FS

 

The "proof" minted coins of this era had deeply incused step lines in the specially prepaired dies which generated many examples of what is to be determined "Full Steps" How ever, if you look at the 1940 Business Strikes, you will note the lack of detail on the 5th and almost non-exsistant 6th step. The designs are identical in nature, but the proof coins, well at least to me, should not be designated as FS.

 

These are some nice segmented shots of the the steps, is there anyway you can "back-up" and take one of the entire step area?

 

Oh yeah: Make sure you think of these comments as constructive criticism, sometimes these posts can be read the wrong way and people get discouraged or angry...believe me when I say I'm truing to help. You will know when I'm angry.

 

[RI AL]

I have to tell ya', those are the BEST full steps photos I have EVER seen!!

[Smilie Puss]

WJ

 

Absolutly! I have an Olympus 8080 digital camera and I have taken some photo's of the entire nickel and can determine FS. I had not thought to include this in my image presentation for 'show and tell'. However, the detail will not be as good.

 

And yes, it did take awhile because the images I have had the wrong IMAGE MAG of 242X instead of 121.6X. So I couldn't use them and had to do a quick fix, hurry up job, to give some illustrations.

 

Next time I will load the gun before taking to the field. I miss more dam wrabbits than you can imagine.

 

I now offer my most humble apologies to those who had to wait. Was it worth the wait?

 

I could use a less powerful microscope but my cheap-o portable $85 PAC-SCI isn't the problem with the field of view (FOV) but rather in my Big Catch (Dino-Lite) eye piece camera that restricts the FOV. Not sure if BC makes one with a wide(er)angle camera. I do have a ACCU-SOPE 3000 with a 4X-10X objective lense but I would be getting less FOV.

 

Critic by peers I can handle.Give me logical reasons and not emotional remarks.

It is ridicule and rejection I some times find frustrating.

[rrantique]

WJ

 

Absolutly! I have an Olympus 8080 digital camera and I have taken some photo's of the entire nickel and can determine FS. I had not thought to include this in my image presentation for 'show and tell'. However, the detail will not be as good.

 

And yes, it did take awhile because the images I have had the wrong IMAGE MAG of 242X instead of 121.6X. So I couldn't use them and had to do a quick fix, hurry up job, to give some illustrations.

 

Next time I will load the gun before taking to the field. I miss more dam wrabbits than you can imagine.

 

I now offer my most humble apologies to those who had to wait. Was it worth the wait?

 

I could use a less powerful microscope but my cheap-o portable $85 PAC-SCI isn't the problem with the field of view (FOV) but rather in my Big Catch (Dino-Lite) eye piece camera that restricts the FOV. Not sure if BC makes one with a wide(er)angle camera. I do have a ACCU-SOPE 3000 with a 4X-10X objective lense but I would be getting less FOV.

 

 

First Snow, nice photos. I think you missed Woody's point. That FS designation does not apply to proof Jeffersons. The circulation strikes only get this designation.

 

Your photo is a Proof correct? (thumbs u

[Smilie Puss]

rrant

 

The point is you are correct about proofs not having that designation but it was a better way to illustrate what FS should look like to someone who doesn't know dittle squat about the difference. Perhaps its the way the ego works, in seperating and defining. It doesn't change a thing but it might be nice to know.

 

A few years ago I wrote to Q David Bowers on how one determines a '38' from a '40'. He didn't have an answer except it had something to do with the steps.

 

It was the jounery to finding out that was the quest and not in the answer. Yes?

[bsshog40]

Those are awesome pics there Snow!

[rrantique]

rrant

 

The point is you are correct about proofs not having that designation but it was a better way to illustrate what FS should look like to someone who doesn't know dittle squat about the difference. Perhaps its the way the ego works, in seperating and defining. It doesn't change a thing but it might be nice to know.

 

A few years ago I wrote to Q David Bowers on how one determines a '38' from a '40'. He didn't have an answer except it had something to do with the steps.

 

It was the jounery to finding out that was the quest and not in the answer. Yes?

 

Cheque Mate.

[Smilie Puss]

rrant

 

Cheque Mate!

[Smilie Puss]

RI AL

 

Thank you. I can do better but for now it will do

[Coin]

WJ

 

had to wait. Was it worth the wait?

 

No doubt , with the right adapters , but I do not even have a basic Pacific Science 'scope to use a camera with .....you still managed to get very nice shots with the 'important' details .

 

Critic by peers I can handle.Give me logical reasons and not emotional remarks.

It is ridicule and rejection I some times find frustrating.

 

You won't get very much ridiculing , might get some friendly jabs , most likely will get more advice than you can absorb at one sitting , but still helpful once you go through them and weed out what does not apply and those that sound like they are worth trying .

Sometimes I can be a 'mud-duck' when it comes to advice , but I'd like to say welcome aboard and Thank-you for some interesting pics .

 

Would be very interesting if the next shots you post could display the variations in the steps near the ends where they differ on mint state full step examples. I'm still not sure with lighting is better as they each have there own benefits .

[Coin]

BTW , I got the gist of what you were showing with the example used . My FS collection is nowhere near complete and I have zillions of rolls of Jeffersons that has nearly driven me blind with the searching , so sometimes I refer to print outs of other photo's that I use to help with differing years whereas the Mint changed small details in the reverse designs of . I believe 'Hoot" had posted a reference to some of his articles that were used in a coin periodical which had some nice pics in them as well , and also he managed to show one of the changeover modifications between two of the years where the steps were modified too. Every little bit helps.

-John

[Schatzy]

Snow......Great pictures!!

[Smilie Puss]

Coin?

 

Thanks. Yes, I think I know when my cage is being rattled and my tail is being twisted. I guess its to hear me growl or something.

 

I bought the PAC-SCI 'toy like' microscope at the Baltimore show a year or two ago and its convenient (portable and comes with built in LED light) to get the detail on the FS that I like to see no matter where I go. With the purchase of the Big Catch eyepiece camera, that was the real bonus. Now one could PC process images like the ones I had posted to share with Jefferson FS aficionado's.

 

But the potential for other images (i.g. VAM's or hub or die markers) is endless.

 

Finally I now have the capability to challenge the graders when they decide to stick an 'Altered Surface' label on something I find different but not altered.

Or a coin my grader said that a mint mark that was added. Photo's accessable through the following link:

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showthreaded&Number=2938772

 

[jesbroken]

Great photo work, Snow.

Jim

[Smilie Puss]

Coin

 

What were the change years and maybe I can put something together?

 

This might be something I could put on power point and give a 15-20 min. seminar at one of the major coin shows or at my local coin club. Those guys and gals like 'show and tell' entertainment.