1954-S/D Jefferson Nickel FS-501 NGC MS65 by lehigh96

[CSJournals-migration]

Obtained a 1954-S/D Jefferson Nickel NGC MS65 from Greattoning (E-Bay seller) for $182.50 and 620 registry points.

 

This auction was won using a max bid of $265.50.

 

1954-S/D 5C MS65: NGC Census: (45/33). PCGS Population (92/3) (2/2012).

Seller: E-Bay Seller: Greattoning

E-Bay Listing: 330682654009

Ended: Feb 12, 201217:31:01 PST

 

Coin Description:

The current example has an average strike for the 1954-S which was the worst struck nickel of the entire series. The steps are non existent, there is die wear on both sides as well as significant loss of detail on both sides with respect to the hair and the interior details of Monticello. Both sides are blanketed in a rich steel blue, orange, and magenta patina that provides alluring eye appeal.

 

Comments:

The 1954-S/D is one of the more dramatic over mintmark varieties found within the Jefferson Nickel series. The die initially received a D mintmark and was later punched with an S mintmark. The bottom edge of the D clearly protrudes from the bottom of the S mintmark. FS-501, formerly FS-033, CONECA: OMM-001, NGC VARIETY PLUS: VP-001. An underlying D is seen within and below the S mintmark. The NGC census in MS65 (2/2012) is 45/33 with all higher examples graded MS66.

 

While I recognize the collectibility of the over mintmark varieties, I have a fundamental problem with the amount of registry points that they garner in comparison to the both the regular issues and the other varieties such as the doubled dies. Consider that the total population for the 1954-S/D in MS65 is 137/36 yet it earns 620 registry points. Compare that to the 1954-S MS67 that has a total population of 19/0 which only yields 183 points. When compared side by side, the difference in quality between an MS67 and MS65 is undeniable but the MS65 gets a huge increase in registry points due to a very minor die variation in my opinion.

 

It is not that I dont appreciate that these varieties deserve a premium in points compared to a non variety coin of the same grade, but the points assignment has to make sense. For whatever reason, NGC has decided not to use the most simple point scale which would simply be based upon price. As it stands, the current point system used by the NGC registry forces the competitor to include inferior coins in their collection if they want to maximize their point total and ranking.

 

See more journals by lehigh96

[lehigh96]

I have attached a larger photo of the over mint mark as well as a photo of my MS67 for comparison purposes.

 

 

[TD Henson]

Another grouping of great pictures!!! It's undeniable that the 67 is a far superior coin. Points generally make no sense to me either. Some coins that I find to be very tough garner at times less points than others that are comparitively easy to find. I think the whole Jefferson nickel set is under-pointed (sorry made that up...)

[coin928]

It is not that I dont appreciate that these varieties deserve a premium in points compared to a non variety coin of the same grade, but the points assignment has to make sense. ... As it stands, the current point system used by the NGC registry forces the competitor to include inferior coins in their collection if they want to maximize their point total and ranking.

 

I totally agree with you on these points. While it is a problem for regular sets, it is much more pronounced in Type Sets where a rare date (or variety) VF coin could easily trump a common date MS65 in points.

[chunk-it]

Congrats on your purchase. I was the second highest bidder.

[Catbert]

Paul - just for my curiosity sake, how does replacing the 67 coin with this one meet your set goals? Are points now more important than any other factor?

[lehigh96]

Paul - just for my curiosity sake, how does replacing the 67 coin with this one meet your set goals? Are points now more important than any other factor?

 

While you are correct that replacing the MS67 is not consistent with my set goals, it yields another goal. The goal now is to get NGC to recognize the error in their ways and to change the way that they assign point values to coins. The only way I can accomplish that is to draw attention to it in thread such as this.

 

And you know that points are not my primary focus. I have several coins in my collection with lower grades and less points but are included due to their eye appeal. My 1938-S MS66 is a good example. I own two 1938-S MS67's but neither resides in my registry set.

 

Having said that, points have now become my focus in one of my sets. One of my goals for 2012 was to take the top spot in the war nickel registry category, and if I have to replace one of my toners to accomplish that goal, then so be it.

[Catbert]

While you are correct that replacing the MS67 is not consistent with my set goals, it yields another goal. The goal now is to get NGC to recognize the error in their ways and to change the way that they assign point values to coins. The only way I can accomplish that is to draw attention to it in thread such as this.

 

Well, my two cents.....given the recognition you've received for what you've accomplished both in terms of your sets and your journal writing, I bet if you contacted someone at NGC (perhaps in a well written appeal to the NGC Prez), I'd bet they would give you the time of day.

 

Your decision surprised me and of course, you are the master of your collection. I'm a big fan of how you've shown and described your collection. Thanks for keeping those of us who are not as talented updated.