How many of these Jefferson Nickels are Star Worthy?

[lehigh96]

If you were an NGC grader, how many of these Jefferson Nickels would you award a star designation under the designation review process? Please vote for as many coins as you want in the attached poll and give your reasons why you believe each coins is or is not star worthy.

 

1) 1939-D NGC MS67

 

 

2) 1942-S NGC MS67

 

 

3) 1944-P NGC MS67 5FS

 

 

4) 1947-D NGC MS66 5FS

 

 

5) 1952 NGC MS67

 

 

6) 1954-S NGC MS67

 

 

7) 1964-D NGC MS67

 

 

 

Please remember that you can vote for as many coins as you want. This should be interesting and fun.

[MarkFeld]

Based on what I can see in the images, I would say possibly coin #4, the 1947-D and not the others. Of course I might feel differently, were I to see them in-hand.

[lehigh96]

Based on what I can see in the images, I would say possibly coin #4, the 1947-D and not the others. Of course I might feel differently, were I to see them in-hand.

 

Hey Mark, please cast your vote. Thanks!

[MarkFeld]

Based on what I can see in the images, I would say possibly coin #4, the 1947-D and not the others. Of course I might feel differently, were I to see them in-hand.

 

Hey Mark, please cast your vote. Thanks!

 

Paul, I considered voting, but my vote is only a maybe (and not firm yes) for that one coin. So I didn't think a vote was warranted. But, if based on that, you think I should vote, I will.??

[lehigh96]

Based on what I can see in the images, I would say possibly coin #4, the 1947-D and not the others. Of course I might feel differently, were I to see them in-hand.

 

Hey Mark, please cast your vote. Thanks!

 

Paul, I considered voting, but my vote is only a maybe (and not firm yes) for that one coin. So I didn't think a vote was warranted. But, if based on that, you think I should vote, I will.??

 

Well you could always vote none of the above if you feel so inclined. As a former grader, I would be interested to hear what you did when you were "on the fence" for the star designation. Would you be more inclined to give it the star knowing that if one of the other graders said no, that it would not get the star?

[robec1347]

I agree with #4 and also will throw in #2.

[Kamillion]

i voted 1, 4, and 6

[erwindoc]

They are all nice, but NGC didnt think they were star worthy the first go around. That doesnt mean that they wouldnt reconsider on review. It will only cost you $10 to find out for each!

 

I wouldnt send the 64 by the way, the black toning on the reverse will make it a no.

[MarkFeld]

Based on what I can see in the images, I would say possibly coin #4, the 1947-D and not the others. Of course I might feel differently, were I to see them in-hand.

 

Hey Mark, please cast your vote. Thanks!

 

Paul, I considered voting, but my vote is only a maybe (and not firm yes) for that one coin. So I didn't think a vote was warranted. But, if based on that, you think I should vote, I will.??

 

Well you could always vote none of the above if you feel so inclined. As a former grader, I would be interested to hear what you did when you were "on the fence" for the star designation. Would you be more inclined to give it the star knowing that if one of the other graders said no, that it would not get the star?

 

I went ahead and voted.

 

Based just on the image, I can't tell whether I think the coin has "exceptional eye-appeal". However, my strong guess is that I would think yes, were I to see it in hand. It would depend mostly upon the vibrancy and beauty of the obverse toning.

 

My decision as to whether to award it a star would be unaffected by what I thought or knew another grader would do.

[physics-fan3.14]

I voted #1 and #4, both of which I find extremely attractive. The rest are average to slightly above average, with the exception of the last coin, the 1964D. I find that coin to be downright ugly.

[TonerGuy]

I would say none... but I have starred several toned Jeffs that I didnt think would star so what do I know...But if you had to try one I say go with #2.. they seem to be easier on War Nickels than anything else.

[leeg]

Very nice coins Paul!

 

I didn't vote because I'm starting to get a bad feeling about star grades.

 

When a coin of the same grade with a star get's more points than one in Cameo, I have a problem with that.

[mkman123]

I like 1,2, and 4

[lehigh96]

Very nice coins Paul!

 

I didn't vote because I'm starting to get a bad feeling about star grades.

 

When a coin of the same grade with a star get's more points than one in Cameo, I have a problem with that.

 

I have been watching that discussion on the NGC Registry section of the forum and decided not to get involved. Jerseycat10 identified the problem correctly and provided the correct solution to the problem. Then to my utter dismay, Jerica responded with a "company line" response that the star designation is for exceptional eye appeal and is automatically awarded a premium in points. I don't know whether she didn't see Jersey's response or didn't want to tackle the monster problem of fixing the star designation values for all proof coins.

 

Personally, IMO, toning does not add significantly to the eye appeal of proof coins. Furthermore, I would bet that a very large portion of the star designated proof coins are for coins that just miss either CAMEO or ULTRA CAMEO. Therefore, the CAMEO designations should reign supreme and get the higher points. And really, it shouldn't even be a discussion. The fact that the star designation proofs have higher points than the CAMEO's proves that whomever is assigning the points doesn't understand the issue at all.

 

Having said that, your entire problem with the star designation is isolated to proof coins. Since my coins are all business strikes, you should have no dilemma.

[coinman_23885]

I voted only for the 1947-D, which I feel is borderline. Most of the rest of the coins have nice color and luster, but not enough to earn a superlative in my book. I don't like the one with the brown spots and black toning (e.g. 1964-D). I think this coin should have been downgrade for negative eye appeal.

[lehigh96]

I voted only for the 1947-D, which I feel is borderline. Most of the rest of the coins have nice coins and luster, but not enough to earn a superlative in my book. I don't like the one with the brown spots and black toning (e.g. 1964-D). I think this coin should have been downgrade for negative eye appeal.

 

It is much more attractive if you just look at Jeff's portrait, .

 

[Catbert]

Paul - I voted for # 2 (primary) and #4 (secondary) simply because they struck me as exceptional looking coins and would love to have either in my type collection.

[RWB]

To me, all except the first coin have too much chatter on the cheek and shouolder to make the "ms67" grades as assigned. As for stars...a gold star and a smiley face to the collector for trying.

 

Just an opinion -

[lehigh96]

To me, all except the first coin have too much chatter on the cheek and shouolder to make the "ms67" grades as assigned. As for stars...a gold star and a smiley face to the collector for trying.

 

Just an opinion -

 

That chatter is remnant planchet roughness which does not affect the grade of the coin.

[Catbert]

I hope, Paul, that you'll share your views at some point in this thread and what you plan to do with NGC.

[lehigh96]

I hope, Paul, that you'll share your views at some point in this thread and what you plan to do with NGC.

 

I plan to take the number one spot in NGC Registry for Jefferson War Nickels. Currently I am 3rd and 3,834 points behind the Bressler collection in first place with 9,382 points.

 

It might seem an impossible feat, but if the stars align, I think I will have a pretty good shot. This exercise was designed to see how many thought my 1942-S would have a legitimate shot at a star designation. I may need the 219 points that the star designation would provide. In addition, my goal for my war nickel set was that every coin would either have a star designation, full step designation, or both. Currently, my 1942-S is the only coin that does not meet that requirement. Having said that, I am not replacing the coin ever, it is phenomenal in hand.

[physics-fan3.14]

To me, all except the first coin have too much chatter on the cheek and shouolder to make the "ms67" grades as assigned. As for stars...a gold star and a smiley face to the collector for trying.

 

Just an opinion -

 

That chatter is remnant planchet roughness which does not affect the grade of the coin.

 

I agree that it is planchet roughness - but I absolutely think that it should limit the grade. A 67 should not have this at all, and a 66 may only have the slightest traces of it. The planchet roughness is a sign of a weak strike, which is not allowed above the level of a 65.

[leeg]

Very nice coins Paul!

 

I didn't vote because I'm starting to get a bad feeling about star grades.

 

When a coin of the same grade with a star get's more points than one in Cameo, I have a problem with that.

 

I have been watching that discussion on the NGC Registry section of the forum and decided not to get involved. Jerseycat10 identified the problem correctly and provided the correct solution to the problem. Then to my utter dismay, Jerica responded with a "company line" response that the star designation is for exceptional eye appeal and is automatically awarded a premium in points. I don't know whether she didn't see Jersey's response or didn't want to tackle the monster problem of fixing the star designation values for all proof coins.

 

Personally, IMO, toning does not add significantly to the eye appeal of proof coins. Furthermore, I would bet that a very large portion of the star designated proof coins are for coins that just miss either CAMEO or ULTRA CAMEO. Therefore, the CAMEO designations should reign supreme and get the higher points. And really, it shouldn't even be a discussion. The fact that the star designation proofs have higher points than the CAMEO's proves that whomever is assigning the points doesn't understand the issue at all.

 

Having said that, your entire problem with the star designation is isolated to proof coins. Since my coins are all business strikes, you should have no dilemma.

Good points. I like the 52.

[MJ]

I like the 42-S the best. Beautiful. My guess would be none will get the star just based on the current climate and review process. I hope I'm wrong and that the 42-S get's a new holder! MJ

[Kurtdog]

All I know is I like #1 the best. Nice coin and the color doesn't throw off the intended eye-movement too much.

[tejas1836]

My favorites are the 42-S and the 44-P. I won't speculate whether they would "star" or not.

 

I like the Jefferson series but for me, the war nickel coins stand far above the rest. I love the big fat mint marks and the different look the silver content gives to the coins.

 

Good luck in your quest for the top spot in the registry.

[lehigh96]

To me, all except the first coin have too much chatter on the cheek and shouolder to make the "ms67" grades as assigned. As for stars...a gold star and a smiley face to the collector for trying.

 

Just an opinion -

 

That chatter is remnant planchet roughness which does not affect the grade of the coin.

 

I agree that it is planchet roughness - but I absolutely think that it should limit the grade. A 67 should not have this at all, and a 66 may only have the slightest traces of it. The planchet roughness is a sign of a weak strike, which is not allowed above the level of a 65.

 

Jason,

 

I think you need to look at this issue from both sides. From a grading purist perspective you are absolutely right. But consider that planchet roughness plagues the entire Jefferson series, even the early years although it is possible to find an appreciable coins from 1938-1942 with no planchet roughness. And normally, planchet roughness is a sign of a weak strike. But in the case of the Jefferson series, planchet roughness is the result of design flaw rather than weak strike. One only needs to view any top Jefferson registry collection to see coins with hammered strikes, full hair detail, full Monticello details, and still show some level of planchet roughness on the cheek, jaw, and coat collar.

 

The result of considering these planchet flaws during the grading process for the Jefferson series would be to make the series uncollectible. Limiting the grades to would cause severe grading discrepancies. The difference between an MS65 & MS67 Jefferson nickel is most related to luster & surface preservation but in many cases, both would display the same planchet roughness. Turning the MS67's into MS65 would cause a grading nightmare. There would be no way to differentiate the high quality examples because they would be grade limited by the planchet roughness.

 

As an example, how would you grade the 3 following coins using your method?

 

 

[jom]

 

That chatter is remnant planchet roughness which does not affect the grade of the coin.

 

I voted for none of the coins and had a similar reasoning as physicsfan. I agree with your statement above about the roughness and the way it grades. HOWEVER, if you ask to give the coins a "star" I would decline because of the chatter. Other than that I probably would lean toward a "star" on #4. JMO.

 

jom

[jom]

 

Jason,

 

I think you need to look at this issue from both sides. From a grading purist perspective you are absolutely right. But consider that planchet roughness plagues the entire Jefferson series, even the early years although it is possible to find an appreciable coins from 1938-1942 with no planchet roughness. And normally, planchet roughness is a sign of a weak strike. But in the case of the Jefferson series, planchet roughness is the result of design flaw rather than weak strike. One only needs to view any top Jefferson registry collection to see coins with hammered strikes, full hair detail, full Monticello details, and still show some level of planchet roughness on the cheek, jaw, and coat collar.

 

The result of considering these planchet flaws during the grading process for the Jefferson series would be to make the series uncollectible. Limiting the grades to would cause severe grading discrepancies. The difference between an MS65 & MS67 Jefferson nickel is most related to luster & surface preservation but in many cases, both would display the same planchet roughness. Turning the MS67's into MS65 would cause a grading nightmare. There would be no way to differentiate the high quality examples because they would be grade limited by the planchet roughness.

 

I think what you have here is a specific grading criteria for a specific series. This is fine and as long as most Jefferson collectors can reasonably agree it should work out fine.

 

The problem is that many of these discussion/arguments are made when one tries to use the above with OTHER series of coins. It really doesn't apply.

 

Again, if Jeff collectors can all agree (mostly) with NGC/PCGS standards on this series then that should work. Because all a grading system is intended to do is communicate between buyer and seller.

 

jom

[rons]

I chose all but the 64 because they have a strong eye appeal to me. Then again, I am not a grader nor have I ever played one on TV Spectacular examples nonetheless with or without the star.