1865 3 Cent Nickel -- GRADE REVEALED

[brg5658]

I picked up this example for my type set. I'm posting both large and smaller, more interpretable images, as people tend to have problems guessing grades on huge images (myself included).

 

Thanks,

-Brandon

 

[copper toning]

Take my opinion with a grain of salt as I have no experience with this series.

 

If the luster is there I would say MS63 due to the weak strike.

 

If not I would say AU55 with wear.

 

Yeh I know big difference just remember I suck at this series for sure.

[copper toning]

Is the coin holdered?

 

I am looking forward to hearing other more experience collectors grades.

[brg5658]

Is the coin holdered?

 

I am looking forward to hearing other more experience collectors grades.

 

Yes, it is in a problem-free PCGS holder.

[MarkFeld]

If going to guess the coin is lighter in color and more lustrous, in hand and that it grades MS64. If I'm wrong about the former, I will be wrong about the latter.

[copper toning]

If going to guess the coin is lighter in color and more lustrous, in hand and that it grades MS64. If I'm wrong about the former, I will be wrong about the latter.

 

Is what I am percieving as weakness in the strike normal for this date? What about other dates?

[Coin Trader]

I know nothing about this series, but I find your particular coin interesting. Like the grainy appearance.

 

I'm going to call it AU55 or 58, not because of the weak strike of course, but because of the color change at the high point in the hair to the right of (behind) the ear. It doesn't line up with the grain (and neither do the more subtle changes of color to the left of the prominent one), so I'm guessing wear.

 

 

 

 

[MarkFeld]

If going to guess the coin is lighter in color and more lustrous, in hand and that it grades MS64. If I'm wrong about the former, I will be wrong about the latter.

 

Is what I am percieving as weakness in the strike normal for this date? What about other dates?

 

Many 1865 examples (and some other dates in the series) exhibit weak strikes. I can't guarantee that this one is indeed, unc. and not a lightly worn AU. But, knowing that many are weakly struck and considering the fact that the fields look to be consistent with an unc. example, I guessed MS64. Nothing between AU and MS64 would surprise me very much, however.

[brg5658]

If going to guess the coin is lighter in color and more lustrous, in hand and that it grades MS64. If I'm wrong about the former, I will be wrong about the latter.

 

Is what I am percieving as weakness in the strike normal for this date? What about other dates?

 

Many 1865 examples (and some other dates in the series) exhibit weak strikes. I can't guarantee that this one is indeed, unc. and not a lightly worn AU. But, knowing that many are weakly struck and considering the fact that the fields look to be consistent with an unc. example, I guessed MS64. Nothing between AU and MS64 would surprise me very much, however.

 

Yep, as Mark said, the 1865 is known for having "mushy" details, particularly noticeable in the lack of bottom curls of the hair. What sold me on this example for my type set was that it was the first year, and that it had very appealing (to my eye) grain/streak toning on the obverse.

[coinman_23885]

I'm going to chalk up the lack of definition in some areas to a weak strike, and I'll go with MS63. In addition to strike, the luster seems to be a limiting factor in my opinion.

[Coinbuf]

I have almost no experience with the series and would have thought AU also but haveing read the explanations for the weak strike issues I'll go with MS64, I think the luster is better than the pic indicates. Great example I realy like the design and wonder why the series was so short lived.

[copper toning]

If going to guess the coin is lighter in color and more lustrous, in hand and that it grades MS64. If I'm wrong about the former, I will be wrong about the latter.

 

Is what I am percieving as weakness in the strike normal for this date? What about other dates?

 

Many 1865 examples (and some other dates in the series) exhibit weak strikes. I can't guarantee that this one is indeed, unc. and not a lightly worn AU. But, knowing that many are weakly struck and considering the fact that the fields look to be consistent with an unc. example, I guessed MS64. Nothing between AU and MS64 would surprise me very much, however.

 

Thanks for the insight. I was using the visual factor I would use with early s/d mint wheats.

[Oldtrader3]

I have owned a few of these and this date range is often weakly struck. I would go with MS64 on this coin as well.

[brg5658]

This little guy is graded PCGS MS62. In hand, and with rotation under proper lighting, there are no "rub" spots, so it's not what I would call a "slider" by conventional use of the term. By that I mean, I would judge that the grade was dinged downward from an MS64 range to the MS62 range because of muted luster (the images are very accurate to in hand). Weakness of the strike is common for this date. But, given it's age and composition, I didn't want to shell out 4 times the money for my type set example for one that was shinier.

 

Thanks for all the guesses.

 

-Brandon

[Oldtrader3]

Luster would be the attribute which does not show well in most on line pics. Luster is low and could be the reason for the MS62 grade.

[coinman_23885]

I agree that the coin was penalized for the relative lack of luster, but I think PCGS was a bit harsh. I thought it was a MS63 easily. Regardless, it is a nice coin, especially for the issue.