How many of these Jefferson Nickels are Star Worthy?

[physics-fan3.14]

Paul, The Franklin series has a similar issue, especially on S mint coins. I don't like it, but that's the way it goes. Because the coin is bigger, it is more detracting when you have this roughness - so it is less accepted. Perhaps, like jom mentioned, there are different standards for the series. But to say that it doesn't affect grade at all - like you maintain - is still disagreeable to me.

 

In light of those different standards, the two on the left should be 67 - but I still think the one on the right has too much. I would call that one 66.

[lehigh96]

Paul, The Franklin series has a similar issue, especially on S mint coins. I don't like it, but that's the way it goes. Because the coin is bigger, it is more detracting when you have this roughness - so it is less accepted. Perhaps, like jom mentioned, there are different standards for the series. But to say that it doesn't affect grade at all - like you maintain - is still disagreeable to me.

 

In light of those different standards, the two on the left should be 67 - but I still think the one on the right has too much. I would call that one 66.

 

And therein lies the problem.

 

 

 

 

 

The luster and strike on the PCGS coin is premium gem level but the marks on the coat collar limit the grade to MS65. The DDR is lacking the luster necessary for premium gem status even though it is the cleanest with relation to planchet flaws. The MS67 has some light marks and the most prominent planchet flaws but it also has premium gem luster, strike, and the eye appeal is off the charts.

 

As you pointed out, once you take the planchet flaws into consideration, the highest graded coin becomes the lowest. If you were to view these coins in hand, there would be no doubt as to which coin is of the highest quality, planchet flaws or not.

 

[coinman_23885]

 

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

 

The star designation isn't based on how solid a coin is for a grade or whether it is premium quality. The star designation rewards exceptional eye appeal. An overgraded (hypothetical) MS64 with phenomenal toning would be entitled to a star even if it belonged in a 63 or 62 holder.

[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

 

The star designation isn't based on how solid a coin is for a grade or whether it is premium quality. The star designation rewards exceptional eye appeal. An overgraded (hypothetical) MS64 with phenomenal toning would be entitled to a star even if it belonged in a 63 or 62 holder.

 

Actually I know that so I guess I wasn't clear. I said no "star" to all of the coins because I thought the chatter kept the coins from having "exceptional eye appeal". Sorry I was unclear.

 

jom

[lehigh96]

 

Actually I know that so I guess I wasn't clear. I said no "star" to all of the coins because I thought the chatter kept the coins from having "exceptional eye appeal". Sorry I was unclear.

 

jom

 

I hear ya but NGC ignores planchet flaws both with respect to grade and the star designation. For example:

 

[physics-fan3.14]

While I respect the TPGs, this is one area where you have to learn to grade for yourself, and decide what's accpetable in your collection. If you are ok with the planchet roughness, then good for you. I would not - so I wouldn't buy any with it. Same with the Franklins - NGC's FBL is tough, but I'm tougher. I have my own standards, and if the coin doesn't meet them, I don't care what grade is on the plastic.

[bsshog40]

This has been a pretty informative thread. I'm not good at recognizing planchet isses from contact marks very well. That being said, I also prefer a cleaner looking coin and I also think that even tho' the tpg's are lenient with the grade for these issues with planchet defects, that the "star" qualification might take them into consideration.

[jom]

 

Actually I know that so I guess I wasn't clear. I said no "star" to all of the coins because I thought the chatter kept the coins from having "exceptional eye appeal". Sorry I was unclear.

 

jom

 

I hear ya but NGC ignores planchet flaws both with respect to grade and the star designation. For example:

 

 

I didn't know that but I'm sure it's true if you say so. I wonder what oddities you can find out for other series like Buffalo nickels or whatever.

 

However, I agree with PhysicsFan in that the coin would have to meet MY criteria. For instance the coin you posted above...now THAT coin I'd "star".

 

This has been a pretty informative thread. I'm not good at recognizing planchet isses from contact marks very well. That being said, I also prefer a cleaner looking coin and I also think that even tho' the tpg's are lenient with the grade for these issues with planchet defects, that the "star" qualification might take them into consideration.

 

This is where I simplify. For me I don't care whether it's a bag mark, mild wear or a planchet flaw...if it takes away from the eye appeal I (personally) value the coin less. That doesn't mean those factors are used by the TPGs the same way because clearly they do NOT...however, I do. That is why I don't have a problem paying more for an true AU58 coin if the coin looks as good as any MS62/63 or whatever. Of course, it's a coin by coin thing but I don't get all hung up on what's a bag mark or a planchet flaw.

 

jom

[lehigh96]

 

Actually I know that so I guess I wasn't clear. I said no "star" to all of the coins because I thought the chatter kept the coins from having "exceptional eye appeal". Sorry I was unclear.

 

jom

 

I hear ya but NGC ignores planchet flaws both with respect to grade and the star designation. For example:

 

 

I didn't know that but I'm sure it's true if you say so. I wonder what oddities you can find out for other series like Buffalo nickels or whatever.

 

However, I agree with PhysicsFan in that the coin would have to meet MY criteria. For instance the coin you posted above...now THAT coin I'd "star".

 

 

It is funny how dominant and dramatic toning seems to make the other flaws disappear. The same level of planchet roughness exists on the jaw of the 1944-S posted above, yet you find it star worthy whereas the coins with less dramatic toning are not because the planchet roughness is more apparent.

 

My point about planchet roughness is that you really can't collect Jefferson Nickels if you are not willing to look past it. There are some date/mm that just don't exist without them, and most date/mm experience the problem although with extensive searching it may be possible to find a specimen without the flaws. Try to find an early 50's Philadelphia Jefferson without planchet flaws; it is a very tough task.

 

To me, planchet flaws on Jefferson Nickels is akin to strike weakness on "O" mint Morgan Dollars. You just accept it and move on and look for coins that are outstanding in every other way. I hear what you and Jason are saying and on some level I agree with you, but I am still a Jefferson collector, and to exclude every coin with planchet flaws would ruin the collecting experience of this series.

[jom]

It is funny how dominant and dramatic toning seems to make the other flaws disappear. The same level of planchet roughness exists on the jaw of the 1944-S posted above, yet you find it star worthy whereas the coins with less dramatic toning are not because the planchet roughness is more apparent.

 

Oh...yeah...I fall for it all of the time. When I collected Buffalo nickels it was the strike I'd overlook. I've always loved this coin:

 

 

The reverse is Mush City and I couldn't care less.

 

jom

 

PS: That's a 26-D BTW.

[lehigh96]

It is funny how dominant and dramatic toning seems to make the other flaws disappear. The same level of planchet roughness exists on the jaw of the 1944-S posted above, yet you find it star worthy whereas the coins with less dramatic toning are not because the planchet roughness is more apparent.

 

Oh...yeah...I fall for it all of the time. When I collected Buffalo nickels it was the strike I'd overlook. I've always loved this coin:

 

 

The reverse is Mush City and I couldn't care less.

 

jom

 

PS: That's a 26-D BTW.

 

That coin is great, very unique and extremely attractive. I hold strike the least important element of a coin's grade. Guess I was made to collect Jefferson Nickels and will transition nicely into Buffalo's when I am done with the Jeffs.