Determining die state in Jeff nickels and other series

[Hoot]

A fellow collector wrote and asked me about early, middle, and late die state distinctions with Jefferson nickels. So, I thought I’d post more generally and offer up some thoughts. You should be able to extrapolate a lot of this information to other series (like buffs!).

 

With regard to Jefferson nickel die state, there are three things that I look for to indicate die state. First, I look for flow lines developing from the rims of the coin toward the center. With no readily noticeable flow lines, crisp and full fields and devices, I consider the coin to be EDS (early die state), with the exception of a freshly polished die, but I’ll get to that.

 

When flow lines at the rims begin to be noticeable, there's not much time for coins to go from light flow lines to lines that are readily apparent that reach inward (radially) to about double the height of the edge lettering. Once flow lines reach that point, I consider the coin a MDS (middle die state) piece. MDS lasts until the second diagnostic arises, and that's heavy flow lines beginning to develop around Jefferson's head. Once this begins, then there is usually a noticeable loss of crispness in all of the devices, particularly Jefferson’s hair, edge lettering, and the doors and windows of Monticello. Late die state (LDS) begins when the coin begins to lose definition in the devices to the point that minor details, such as the windows and doors of Monticello, begin to bridge with the surrounds. The doors and windows will bridge with the walls of the building and the details in the steps the flanks of Monticello will be flat. Edge lettering will often blend smoothly into the fields. LDS coins can be wild and will halo significantly on handsome pieces. Take a look at any 1954-S/D and you'll be looking at an LDS piece, especially for the reverse.

 

The third diagnostic of die state is to look for loss of detail in the devices (especially minor detail) accompanied by heavy die abrasion evidence in the fields (polish lines). This can eliminate some or all of the heavy flow lines from the bases of devices and letters with a concomitant loss of relief. (BTW, die polish lines go all directions, while flow lines are radial.) Coins in this state can look quite good, as some of the high point detail is restored. I consider all of these coins MDS or LDS, depending on the loss of detail. You have to distinguish these from EDS coins that have heavy die polish lines from hurried production. EDS coins, however, have great, bold device details.

 

Not all EDS coins have full steps. FS are the result of metal flow, which is the result of a combination of die detail, die hardness, striking pressure, evenness of strike, planchet thickness, planchet hardness, metal mix evenness in the planchet, and God know what else. However, you'll see a lot of great EDS Jeffs without FS, and some LDS jeffs that have mushy devices all the way around, but the steps are full! Nuts.

 

Anyhow, I hope that this is mildly interesting. Add your own comments, please, and comments on other series.

 

Hoot

[TomB]

I liked it!

 

Please don't hold back on these short courses.

[EVillageProwler]

Hoot,

 

You need to branch out from your beloved nickels. As an exercise, I suggest that you study the data behind the assertion (conclusion?) that the Carter specimen of the 1794 dollar is (one of the) earliest struck of that date.

 

I believe there is an old thread across the street where Cardinal spells out the details of the data.

 

I absolutely assure you that you will find it quite intellectually stimulating. The biggest wrinkle in that data is the presence of both the adjustment marks and the silver plug, the explanation of which (as I recall) is pure conjecture.

 

Go ahead. Your left hemisphere can handle one more coinage series.

 

EVP

 

PS I feel uncomfortable accepting the assertion as conclusion, and am genuinely interested in opinions from actual scientists.

[Hoot]

Hoot,

 

You need to branch out from your beloved nickels.

 

Sorry ma...

 

Hoot

[Leothelion]

Nice write up Hoot! EDS all the way! I'll comment more tommorow, I meant later today when I wake up!

 

Leo

[TomB]

This can be extended to other series also, as mentioned, and an example of this in the Washington quarter series is the "sunken" look that Washington's portrait acquires as the die state deteriorates and the oatmeal-type of strike that the reverse typically features where the eagle's wingtips dissolve and the lettering is very faint.

 

Oddly enough, or perhaps in a consistent manner, I have long stated that the 1954-S Washington quarter is the worst struck coin in the series and then you list the 1954-S/D Jefferson as an example.

[Leothelion]

Hoot

What's a better way to demostrate other than using a picture!

See attachment! The coin in the pic is what I consider an EDS

coin. My personal criteria for an EDS coin is that it must have

the wide rim as shown in the picture. And of course, all the devices

must be sharp and full in detail for the exception of the steps

for reasons you have already stated! The area you described

to be EDS is too wide as I believe the crisp sharpness of the

letters, date and wide rim is lost by the time the die erosion

or noticeable flow lines reach that point.

I have always considered 4 stages of die life that include full

or strong strikes but these strikes fall short of what I consider

an EDS strike. Locating a coin with an EDS strike is very

difficult! I have several but I also have a ways to go before

completing my collection.

Nontheless, your post was very informative, I'm aware of the

flow lines as well, the worst they get, the worst the coin looks.

The sad thing is, it's the fact that the TGC's don't know squat

when it comes to taking this kind of info into consideration

when grading coins. The TGC's need a new tier of coin grading

that exclude all understrucked coins! Wow, what an omen that

would be!

 

Leo

[Hoot]

Leo - I like what you are saying, and I also think it applies especially to issues of 1938. In 1938, the coins were made with a wider rim than in subsequent years. One of the device changes made on the master hub in 1939 was a narrower rim. But even for coin of 1939 on, rim definition is a good diagnostic for identifying EDS coins. If the narrow line between the edge lettering and the rims (obv/rev) is clean and free of noticeable flow lines, then you usually have a well-struck EDS coin.

 

Good luck collecting EDS coins. For some issues (especially 1953-55, that will be quite tough. When I found a 1953-S with exactly the character that you're describing (below), then I knew I had found a winner.

 

 

Hoot

[Leothelion]

Hoot

Your 53-S, due to it's strike, should have a value of $100+! Why is that, it's likely that less than 1% of the 1953-S received full strikes! And far fewer than that 1% have survived in the condition your coin displays! Perhaps this coin already falls under NGC's * "STAR" designation if they do that with strikes! Your coin is not an EDS coin according to what I have outlined but it certainly does have a strong strike and this may be the best strike the 53-S can have.

 

Leo

[cladking]

Hoot; Beautiful strike. '53-S's just aren't much seen like this.

 

It might be relevant to point out that die wear is not straight line either between dies or with an individual die pair. They are installed differently and operated under different pressures. I've long suspected that planchet temperature and weight variations are significant determinants of strike quality in at least some instances.

[Hoot]

"I've long suspected that planchet temperature and weight variations are significant determinants of strike quality in at least some instances."

 

I couldn't agree more that conditions of the planchet have a great deal to do with how well the coin strikes. I believe that it's more than some instances and is equal to die condition with how well any coin strikes given the present condition of the die. Once the die deteriorates, however, it sets an "upper limit" to the condition of strike in any given instance.

 

Hoot

[jtwax-migration]

Nice post Mark.

 

Flow lines are probably the biggest determining factor for die state. As well, being a variety collector, device deterioration also plays a big role in determining die state.

 

Strike and die state are two different things. Mid 50's coins are natorious for weak strikes however should we label the weak reverses of these coins LDS or MDS? Even tho a weakly struck coin shows little detail on the devices it can still deem EDS qualities. Granted, it would make the state determination more difficult. This conflict also carries to grading. Can one have a weak strike that has the characteristics of a MS66 grade? I think yes.

 

When we talk about rim definition we are virtually talking about strike pressure. Again, IMO, one could have an EDS coin, although the rims may not be heavily defined, from the results of a clear field and crisp devices.

[spy88]

I personally don't affix a EDS, MDS or LDS to any of my Jeffs nor do I consider it worthwhile to truly know the difference and be able to "slot" any Jeff into one of the three states. However, it does come naturally to any collector if enough time is devoted to a specific series. But there is no line that distinctly separates one from the other and each collector will have their own criteria as to where a certain coin fits in.

 

Throughout most of the Jeff series, there are dates from any of the mints that one can find a prime example of what is considered a full strike or EDS coin. There are, however, those few years from certain mints where the most attainable strike quality would be considered MDS were it compared to any other date/mm. The 53-S is such a year and mint.

 

The following three coins are (IMO) one EDS and two LDS Jeffs and are used to illustrate Hoots statement about a solid strike with no steps and visa versa.

 

This is a version of a LDS Jeff and the only 2 requirements I have for denoting it as such is the area under the chin (black in my pic) and the hollow area just behind the eye. If there is pitting and/or lack of metal filling in these two areas, it is LDS to me. As most Jeffs are 90% graded on the obverse, I don't use any reverse requirements for a E, M, or LDS because as you can see, this one has a pretty good strike. No steps.

 

 

This next one is a EDS to me simply because the opposite of my LDS description is absent regardless of the flow lines and strike deterioration visible on the reverse. It also has quite a strong obverse strike with mostly clean, clear and defined devices. You'd almost think I got the pics mixed up and this obverse should go with the above reverse! Nope. Again, no steps.

 

 

And here is another LDS where the metal under the chin and behind the eye is pitted and not filled in. And even though the strike is worse then the first LDS above, some may say the first one is a MDS based on the obverse deterioration and overall soft strike in comparison. But now we've got steps!

 

 

If I stop to think about it, I'd say I adjust my definition of and criteria for each of the three states depending on the year and mint of the Jeff in question. I simply cannot see having the same requirements carry over for each year/mm especially when finding certain dates/mms such as the 53-S are extremely rare in any grade over MS65. Was the very first 53-S minted as sharp and full in detail as the first 58-D or 47 or many other year/mms?

[Hoot]

Nice post Mark.

 

Flow lines are probably the biggest determining factor for die state. As well, being a variety collector, device deterioration also plays a big role in determining die state.

 

Strike and die state are two different things. Mid 50's coins are natorious for weak strikes however should we label the weak reverses of these coins LDS or MDS? Even tho a weakly struck coin shows little detail on the devices it can still deem EDS qualities. Granted, it would make the state determination more difficult. This conflict also carries to grading. Can one have a weak strike that has the characteristics of a MS66 grade? I think yes.

 

When we talk about rim definition we are virtually talking about strike pressure. Again, IMO, one could have an EDS coin, although the rims may not be heavily defined, from the results of a clear field and crisp devices.

 

Thanks Jason - great clarifications you've added too. I agree that weakly struck coins have to be differentiated from middle/late die state. What I was hoping to convey in my initial post was that when die state begins to deteriorate to the point where devices are affected, then it can weaken the definition of devices. This is manifested by the presence of heavy flow lines and is different from a weak strike.

 

I've seen many nickels from the mid-1950s (and others) that were weak strikes and not LDS, but the 1954-S/Ds were all struck from a deteriorating reverse die. Very tough to grade those. Leo would probably argue that those should NEVER be given gem grades, while others, myself included, think that the initial state of the dies should be of consideration when considering grade, so gem pieces are a possibility. Either persective has its merits.

 

Cladking and I mentioned planchet conditions, and that is the biggest (IMO) factor of the unknown for how well a coin will be struck. A great example is the 1940-S full steps Jeff nickels. How many of those have you seen that are LDS? I believe that LDS specimens predominate the FS pieces. They are simply WILD! Great halos around Jefferson and flanking Monticello, unreal flow lines, and FS! Cool stuff.

 

This just goes to show how many permutations there are for collecting this or any other series.

 

Hoot

[Hoot]

Here's my personal example of a 1940-S: well struck, but LDS. Heavy flow lines at the rims and all over the devices (they give the coin the "two-tone" effect), especially Monticello. Great definition (what's left of it) for an LDS coin, and FS - 6FS. Note the great halos and the unreal die scratches on the reverse.

 

 

Hoot

[Hoot]

I simply cannot see having the same requirements carry over for each year/mm especially when finding certain dates/mms such as the 53-S are extremely rare in any grade over MS65. Was the very first 53-S minted as sharp and full in detail as the first 58-D or 47 or many other year/mms?

 

I agree with you, David. Jeffs should be graded on the basis of how the coins were minted each year and at each Mint (good old "market grading"). And I think that's happening more and more as graders are becoming familiar with the entire series. That's been going on a long, long time in other series, e.g. buffalo nickels, bust coinage, so on and so forth.

 

As for your question about the 53-S, I think that the coins that were first struck were quite clean - my 53-S above is a rare example. But I also believe that something went awry in the minting process in the mid-50s at the branch Mints. One can conjecture anything, but what I think I'm seeing is an overabundance of LDS coins in those years. Without a date-by-date analysis of die pairs, everything is conjecture. But I will venture to say that there was something different about the dies themselves that were shipped to the branch Mints. Perhaps it was that the dies, which are shipped from Philadelphia in a "soft tempered" state, were not properly hardened once at the branch Mints. This seems vastly worse for San Francisco than Denver, as many more LDS coins appear to have come from SF. Now, there could be all kids of other possibilities here (e.g., fewer dies in SF than Denver), but bear in mind that 1953 and 54 were waning years for the SF Mint (in terms of business strikes). So perhaps less attendance to quality was a factor.

 

It's anybody's guess, but it's fun to banter about the ideas. Just ideas at this point.

 

Did I rattle on?

 

Hoot

[Leothelion]

I simply cannot see having the same requirements carry over for each year/mm especially when finding certain dates/mms such as the 53-S are extremely rare in any grade over MS65. Was the very first 53-S minted as sharp and full in detail as the first 58-D or 47 or many other year/mms?

 

I agree with you, David. Jeffs should be graded on the basis of how the coins were minted each year and at each Mint (good old "market grading"). And I think that's happening more and more as graders are becoming familiar with the entire series. That's been going on a long, long time in other series, e.g. buffalo nickels, bust coinage, so on and so forth.

 

As for your question about the 53-S, I think that the coins that were first struck were quite clean - my 53-S above is a rare example. But I also believe that something went awry in the minting process in the mid-50s at the branch Mints. One can conjecture anything, but what I think I'm seeing is an overabundance of LDS coins in those years. Without a date-by-date analysis of die pairs, everything is conjecture. But I will venture to say that there was something different about the dies themselves that were shipped to the branch Mints. Perhaps it was that the dies, which are shipped from Philadelphia in a "soft tempered" state, were not properly hardened once at the branch Mints. This seems vastly worse for San Francisco than Denver, as many more LDS coins appear to have come from SF. Now, there could be all kids of other possibilities here (e.g., fewer dies in SF than Denver), but bear in mind that 1953 and 54 were waning years for the SF Mint (in terms of business strikes). So perhaps less attendance to quality was a factor.

 

It's anybody's guess, but it's fun to banter about the ideas. Just ideas at this point.

 

Did I rattle on?

 

Hoot

 

People, people people! Have you lost your marbles! It's already bad enough that the TGC's grading abilities is all over place when it comes to the accuracy and consistency in grading coins! Certainly it's unclear what exactly that grading system is but the criterias set forth that warrants a MS65 grade must be met by the coin and not the other way around. We can't say that the best condition a coin can be located in, for any given year, should automatically get the nod for the MS65 or higher grade! What have you guys been smoking! Plastic?

The major flaw in this theory is, what's to be done when that true MS66 coin surfaces? The one thing we'll know for sure, it will certainly be in bad company with all those other overgraded coins! And we can't have that.......the gods won't stand for it!

 

Leo

[Hoot]

People, people people! Have you lost your marbles! It's already bad enough that the TGC's grading abilities is all over place when it comes to the accuracy and consistency in grading coins! Certainly it's unclear what exactly that grading system is but the criterias set forth that warrants a MS65 grade must be met by the coin and not the other way around. We can't say that the best condition a coin can be located in, for any given year, should automatically get the nod for the MS65 or higher grade! What have you guys been smoking! Plastic?

The major flaw in this theory is, what's to be done when that true MS66 coin surfaces? The one thing will know for sure, it will certainly be in bad company with all those other overgraded coins! And we can't have that.......the gods won't stand for it!

 

Leo

 

 

I knew you'd chime in sooner or later!

 

It's the age-old debate of market vs. technical grading... so it rages.

 

Hoot