Counting the steps on the Jefferson nickel!

[Leothelion]

Hi EveryoneAcross the street, full step Jefferson collector, (user name clackamas) Brian M. has certified the very first 1968-D MS64FS Jefferson nickel! First, congrats to Brian! He searched through as many as 1800 mint sets and through hard work and dedication, this coin is the result of that massive search! What I would like to address is, how the steps are counted, what to look for and basically, calling it as you see it! In the following diagram are several rough drawings of the steps in every angle imaginable. I have color circled each to help illustrate my points of view and on how the steps are counted on the Monticello building!The top example of steps is what would be considered 5 steps. The second set, outline in yellow, I would call a 6646 step coin. The one thing about this set of steps is that the grey area shows where the risers of the steps did not strike up as sharp as the rest of the steps but yet the incused line, the thin black line between the steps can be seen. When only the incused line can be seen when the raised portion of that step area is missing, should the lower step be included into the step count when most of the riser and tread in missing in detail.Looking back into the history of the Full Step Nickel Clubs through the early years beginning sometime in 1977, here's what they said;"The counting of the steps is best performed by mentally dividing the step area into four quarters and then counting the unbroken steps in each quarter section. It is important to remember that there cannot be any interruptions or misses in the steps. Any merging of the steps together from one quarter to the other quarter step would disallow the counting of that section as a step." A quote by Susan and Richard Sisti.Bern Nagengast wrote in his book, "The Nickel Analyst", "A five step coin must have four defined indentations between the raised portions of the steps and the raised lines (portions) and indentations must be complete from left to right." In the red outline the risers of the steps are the front areas of the steps that can be seen when viewing the steps. The top of the steps where the arrows are pointing down are called the tread of the steps. The tread of the step cannot easily be seen so the word description "indentations" was used by Mr Nagengast to refer to that area between the raised portions of the steps. When the riser and tread of the step are visible to the eye, I believe this detail of the steps is what Mr Nagengast refers to as the raised portions of the steps.The green outlined illustration shows how the steps should stack up when viewing them from the extreme side of the steps (if it were possible.) The blue, brown and purple outlines show the missing areas (raised portions) when the step does not strike up and all that is left to discern in those areas is the incused line. To illustrate my point further, in the purple outline, we are viewing a step from the extreme bottom along the entire length of the step. And to the right we can see how the raised portion of that step detail is missing. To the left of that step is also shown a missing or broken segment of the step that was caused by a nick. If a nick can disqualify a nickel from receiving a full step designation then how is it possible for that missing segment to the right of the step qualify as a full step coin? I have added two heavy white lines to indicate that missing segment of steps and remember all that can be seen in that area of the step is the thin line that separates the steps but the raised portion of that step area does not exist, it did not strike up. You make the call! I'll add some pictures of some steps later.

 

 

 

Get simple, reliable, and affordable image hosting with Vendio today!

Leo

[spy88]

Here is Brians 1968-D MS64FS. It may be the only one any of us will ever see so enjoy it!!! Actually, a fairly nice strike for a 68-D as the reverse is usually seen not only missing the steps, but the pillars will be very weak and the window lines between them will not show. If not for the big hit on the obverse, it would have made 65! Congratulations to you, Brian!

 

[Oldtrader3]

Interesting article, Leo. The drawings are well done also. Thanks for the time and effort.

[Leothelion]

In Brian's scan it appears that segments of the 4th and 5th steps did not strike up very well.

 

 

 

Get simple, reliable, and affordable image hosting with Vendio today!

More step detail can be seen in Brian's close-up scan of the steps. The 2nd set of steps are in negative form. The last set is of my coin.

 

 

 

Get simple, reliable, and affordable image hosting with Vendio today!

Leo

[Leothelion]

This next illustration shows how angling the camera lower on the steps of 1967 to 1970 will capture more detail of the steps. The first set of steps was taken with the camera perpendicular 90 degrees from the steps. The next 3 pics the camera was angled slightly lower then eye level with the steps in each shot. Which steps look the best?

 

 

 

Get simple, reliable, and affordable image hosting with Vendio today!

Leo

[Leothelion]

The next two set of steps are from a 1968-S Jefferson nickel. The 2nd set of steps was taken at an angle about 5 to 10 degrees south or lower then the steps. It makes a big difference where the camera is positioned on the steps to capture the full details of the steps.

 

 

 

Get simple, reliable, and affordable image hosting with Vendio today!

Leo

[Leothelion]

And lastly, for the fun of it all, while I had all these coins out, here are a series of steps taken of those dates from 1968 to 1970. The following dates are from top to bottom. The 68D, 68S, 69D, 69S, 70D and the 70S!

 

 

 

Get simple, reliable, and affordable image hosting with Vendio today!

I guess if there is anything to be learned here, full steps is determined when all the raised portions of the steps are visible to the eye from more then one direction of viewing. Please refer back to my first post in this thread, to what Nagengast and the Sisti's have already stated for the definition of full steps!Leo

[Hoot]

Nice illustrations, Leo.

 

Hoot

[Leothelion]

Nice illustrations, Leo.

 

Hoot

 

Thank you Hoot!

The props took me a little bit of time to assemble. I have asked Brian to send the coin to me so I can verify the steps! It would be of the upmost importance to know if Pcgs got it right! Brian has already indicated that the 5th step is weak under the 3rd pillar. That little tidbit of information raises some doubts among the full step nickel community. Once I can see the coin in hand, I could help verify and photograph the steps. As we are fully aware on how Pcgs has failed time after time in grading full step Jeffersons, it is neccesary to take the precautionary steps to avoid another disaster like the one that occured in Pittsburgh, PA last August!

My gut feeling tells me this coin is another GFG! I truly believe the same fate will come to this coin as did the 1960-D and 1961-D. Albeit, the 61-D is very close to full steps but there is that slight bridge in the steps. But the 1960-D was grossly misrepresented by Pcgs and Bowers and Merena! There were several other collectors and dealers at that B&M auction and they all told me the same, the 60-D was not a full step nickel! I have asked in the past to photograph the 60-D and had hopes that pictures of the 61-D would have surfaced by now and been brought to everyone's attention but this has not happen yet so there's a great deal of doubt out there on those two coins as well. Same thing goes for the certified 1965 and 1966 nickels, do they have 5 full complete separated steps. For many collectors around the world, who have a hundred thousand years of combined searching for these date in full steps, these rare dates need to be photographed and be seen before they could ever reach their potential values! But the truth to many of these coins has been hidden and that should tell everyone that these coins are likely bogus!

 

Gee hoot, I'm glad you chimed in to help me get all that off my chest! What a sigh of relief! Thank you!

 

Leo

[Hoot]

Glad you got it off your chest too.

 

I also have my significant doubts, and I don't want to say anything offensive to Clackamas, as he's a diligent collector. There's no doubt that the coin is better for step detail than the vast majority of 68-Ds, but I'd imagine it is a tad weak from 4 to 5 in the center. I look upon it as a "matter of degree" when it comes to assessing the detail of the coin. I've seen a few 4 steppers over time, with vestiges of more detail at the left and right buttresses, but not 5 steps. I always thought those should be worth a premium, but it simply did not bear true. It's a crazed world. (Thanks for letting me say that. ) This coin will bring big bucks when it's sold, no matter how informed the waiting public is.

 

Hoot

[Leothelion]

Glad you got it off your chest too.

 

I also have my significant doubts, and I don't want to say anything offensive to Clackamas, as he's a diligent collector. There's no doubt that the coin is better for step detail than the vast majority of 68-Ds, but I'd imagine it is a tad weak from 4 to 5 in the center. I look upon it as a "matter of degree" when it comes to assessing the detail of the coin. I've seen a few 4 steppers over time, with vestiges of more detail at the left and right buttresses, but not 5 steps. I always thought those should be worth a premium, but it simply did not bear true. It's a crazed world. (Thanks for letting me say that. ) This coin will bring big bucks when it's sold, no matter how informed the waiting public is.

 

Hoot

 

Hoot

You're slipping up here! I've just learned the word is, "utmost" and not, "upmost"!

 

Leo

[Woodwind-migration]

Thanks for sharing. I'm starting on this series myself and already I see the challenges of finding full step examples on most dates/mints.

 

Congrats to Brian on finding that 68-S. 1,800 mint sets? Talk about persistence.

[Hoot]

Thanks for sharing. I'm starting on this series myself and already I see the challenges of finding full step examples on most dates/mints.

 

Congrats to Brian on finding that 68-S. 1,800 mint sets? Talk about persistence.

 

Just a little correction - it wa a 68-D, not S.

 

And think of it this way: Clackamas looked at a lot of Mint sets, but not really a large proportion of coins. If there were 1 full step 68-D for every 1800 coins, there'd be many more on record as full steps than there are today. Mint sets from 1968 were horrid. They make today's Mint sets look like they were made for precision instrumentation in the Space Shuttle. I think that Clackamas's find was quite lucky, no matter whether the step designation is 100% correct or not. And I'm very pleased for him. But to repeat the act would be fooling one's self into thinking that the frequency is somehow correct.

 

Going by memory, I think that Nagengast estimated FS 68-Ds at 1:10,000 coins. Actually, I think this is an overestimate. I have no statistics to back me up, only experience and a wealth of collectors out there to say that 5 step (or better) 68-Ds just don't exist. Well, that means they're exceedingly rare.

 

BTW, I doubt that a 68-D in FS will ever be found with a full strike or on an EDS (early die state) coin. EDS 68-Ds can be found, and they can be quite lovely (if you like Jeffs). Usually, hoever, their step detail is dysmal, even when everything else was nearly perfect.

 

Just some thoughts.

 

Leio - I simply didn't think that it was worth correcting you on upmost, utmost, thismost or thatmost. I misspell like crazy when I type (no coordination). Sometimes, I just want to hit the keyboard randomly (and hard), and hope for the best.

 

Hoot

[Woodwind-migration]

Hoot, leo, if you don't mind me asking a "newbie" type question, what do you attribute to the consistently weak strikes of Jefferson Nickels? Lack of die pressure, die wear, both, or something else.

 

Thanks for the edjumikashun.

[Oldtrader3]

Excuse me Leo for jumping in. IMHO the nickel in the alloy and it's work hardening characteristics during die striking that is the culprit.

[Hoot]

Excuse me Leo for jumping in. IMHO the nickel in the alloy and it's work hardening characteristics during die striking that is the culprit.

 

That's it! Hard alloy + too many strikes per die pair = mushy devices. I really can't say how many strikes it takes to begin to fatigue a die for a nickel coin, but it can't be very many. Very few nickels come without some signs of die fatigue.

 

There are a couple of more subtle factors, however. One is that it would appear that from 1948 through 1969, the mint was not tuned in to making quality nickels. Seemed to have been a haphazard event. Very few well struck EDS nickels appear from those dates. I suspect that some dismissal of the value of the denomination might have been culprit, but for whatever reason, it's my impression that striking pressures were not well attended to. Another, more subtle factor is that dies appeared to fatigue with great rapidity in the time period mentioned. I believe this was from poor practices of hardening dies. In part, I contend this due to the fact that branch mint coins are mushier than Philadelphia minted coins for most dates. Dies were made in Philly, but shipped not-yet-hardened to Denver and SF (in case of theft, they would be of limited utility). The coins from those mints are generally abysmal from 1948-69, and I believe that's due to poor practices of hardening the dies upon arrival to their final destinations.

 

Hoot