1970 s Jefferson Nickle MS 0

[Cing]

Recently I cut up a 1970 Mint set to obtain the Jefferson Nickle. Assuming if I send it to PCGS for grading it would be graded in MS not Pr. My question is where do 1970 s MS graded Jefferson Nickles come from if not a Mint Set. MS....Guidance appreciated 

[RWB]

Uncirculated nickels (not "nickles" - are those fancy underpants?) are included in Treasury Mint Sets, and in large bags distributed to coin sorting and packaging centers. These latter are broken down into rolls ($2 for a roll of 40 nickels) and sent to banks for use by their customers. If the coins happen to be new, they are "uncirculated;" if used, they will be "circulated."

There's no magical source - people just go to a bank and then look through many rolls of nickels to find the very best - some of these are submitted for independent "grading" although the chances of finding anything of high enough grade to be worth the grading cost are very low.

Hope this is helpful.

[EagleRJO]

If he cut it out of a 1970 "mint set" I think it would be graded MS, but if from a "proof set" it would be graded PF, or did they not have proof sets that year?

Did the set you cut it out of look like the attached, which is a regular 1970 uncirculated "mint set"?

Edited November 5, 2022 by EagleRJO

[Lem E]

Yes there were both mint sets and proof sets in 1970. If attributed correctly it should grade as a MS coin. Along with the mint sets, the S coins were distributed like any other circulation coin through the banks. If you will notice, in 1970 there were no nickels minted in Philadelphia. This is true for 1968 and 1969 as well.

[Sandon]

   In 1970 the San Francisco mint (then technically an assay office) made nearly 239 million five cent pieces (nickels) for circulation. They are still occasionally found in change. When they have no wear, they are referred to as "uncirculated" or "mint state".  Of these some 2 million were included in the uncirculated coin or "mint" sets sold that year, including the one you removed.  These circulation strike coins are distinct from the mirror-like proofs included in the over 2.6 million proof sets sealed in hard plastic holders sold by the mint in 1970.  Almost none of the circulation strikes (mostly worth less than $1) or the proofs (mostly worth $1-$2) would be worth the $40 or more that you would have to spend in grading fees, processing fees, shipping and insurance costs that you would spend to have a single coin certified by PCGS or NGC.

   "S" mint cents dated from 1968 to 1974 and nickels made from 1968 to 1970 were made by the hundreds of millions for circulation, unlike the other denominations after 1968 and later issues that were only made in San Francisco in proof format. They are only worth any substantial money in very high and rare grades (like MS 67 or PF 70) or if proofs when they are also "deep mirror cameos". 

   You will need to learn a great deal more about coins before you even think about sending any to grading services!  You must "buy the book before the coin".  To that end please refer to my following post, which will inform you as to the basic publications and online resources that you will need to become a successful collector:

 

[EagleRJO]

I found the attached 1970 proof set from the San Fran mint on Google. So if the nickel came from that San Fran set I assume that would grade PF/PR [Edited to remove an incorrect proof set].

Edited November 8, 2022 by EagleRJO

[Sandon]

@EagleRJO--Surely you know that all annual U.S. proof sets since 1968 and all the coins they contained were minted in San Francisco! The last proof sets minted in Philadelphia are dated 1964.  Do I need to tell you to study the Redbook too?

[EagleRJO]

@SandonI didn't have the Red Book or my computer handy as I'm away, which is why I clarified it was just from a Google search and referenced the second set as where the nickel would likely come from for a PF coin just based on memory. I edited the post for clarity.

Edited November 8, 2022 by EagleRJO

[Cing]

SO i recently cut up a 1970 Mint Set....Yes Mint Set. Not a Proof Set and submitted it to PCGS as a #84085. They graded it as a PR...and not MS.....Has PCGS ever miss graded a coin before......

[EagleRJO]

If you post good pics of both sides of the coin as well as pics of the mint set you cut it out of that may help in figuring that out.

[Cing]

How's that... I order a Truvu high res photo..... I this was a Proof from a hard covered Proof set it would look better then this.   

[Lem E]

To me it does look like a hazy proof coin. I say that because of the smoothness of the fields, the lack of bag marks and hits and the overall clean strike. It also looks to have a hint of prooflike mirror down around UNITED STATES on the reverse. I’m not trying to argue where you got it from or anything like that. These pictures are all I have to go by. It just simply has the look of a proof. If it is a MS coin, it is one of the cleanest examples I have ever seen. I’m not sure how much care was taken with the mint set coins back then. Just comparing your coin to MS and proof examples from other truviews, I would put this with the proofs. 

[Sandon]

@Cing--I do not appreciate your posing as a new, uninformed collector with a legitimate question that I spent a fair amount of time trying to answer fully.  Respectfully, I have reason to believe that you are still "pulling our leg" about the coin in the PCGS photo (graded PR 66 with a price guide value of $2) having been taken from a mint rather than a proof set.  The coin appears to be a proof based on its mirror surface, highly polished dies, lack of abrasions, marks or planchet roughness on Jefferson's cheek and elsewhere, and, most significantly, the full steps on Monticello.  If it did in fact come from a mint set, "the joke's on you" because a 1970-S circulation strike nickel graded MS 66 with "full steps" lists $3,850 in the same price guide! (Proofs usually have full steps, while uncirculated coins with them from that era are often rare and avidly collected.)

   Yes, grading services do make mistakes.  I have an 1873-S with arrows dime that was erroneously certified by NGC as just 1873 arrows, even though the mint mark is visible on NGC's photo of the coin! Coins with wrong dates and types printed on the labels are seen with some frequency.  The grading services refer to these as "clerical errors" and will correct the error free of charge but won't pay warranty claims on them if they should have been obvious to a collector.  It doesn't help when people incorrectly fill out the submission form, especially when it is intentional.   

Edited November 6, 2022 by Sandon
eliminate excess space at bottom

[JKK]

On 11/6/2022 at 11:12 AM, Sandon said:

@Cing--I do not appreciate your posing as a new, uninformed collector with a legitimate question that I spent a fair amount of time trying to answer fully.

   

What amazes me is that anyone ever answers anyone who collects nickels but cannot spell the word. That's like a candidate for the land's highest office putting out signs that say "Joe Blow for Precedent." If it were up to me their posts would be auto-deleted. Don't ever make me moderator, I guess.

[EagleRJO]

@Sandonthe op may be looking for people that agree with him that if he took it from a regular mint set it should have been graded MS66 and not PR66 to use as ammunition to challenge the grading as a PR when he wants it to be graded MS, which is much more valuable and how he submitted it to PCG$. To me it was sus that he was able to come right back with PCG$ pics, but no pics of the "mint set" that he got it from as requested

Unfortunately for the op there are people who are knowledgeable and know the difference on this board, so they called it out as a proof. I doubt we will see this troll anymore.

Edited November 7, 2022 by EagleRJO

[VKurtB]

On 11/6/2022 at 2:17 PM, JKK said:

What amazes me is that anyone ever answers anyone who collects nickels but cannot spell the word. That's like a candidate for the land's highest office putting out signs that say "Joe Blow for Precedent." If it were up to me their posts would be auto-deleted. Don't ever make me moderator, I guess.

Besides, everyone knows it’s spelled “Joe Blough”.

[Cing]

TO those who offered Help Thank You. TO those who criticized....Well you now.. I don’t need to say..  

When I joined NGC and found these blogs I thought I would participate and ask the community some questions.  

Apparently, some of you don’t like Newbies. 

Even though I entered the NEWBIE section.  

If you do not wish to help or answer my questions. Don’t 

But don’t think I can be intimidated to leave this board. 

I don’t appreciate BULLYS.  

Thank you for your time.  

I'm looking forward to talking and corresponding with many of you ... 

Edited November 7, 2022 by Cing

[VKurtB]

Cing,

I have looked through this ENTIRE THREAD. I cannot find even ONE respondent to your post who has EVER been reasonably called a “bully”, unlike me, who has been called that with SOME reason. 
 

Here’s the problem with your post. People DO NOT BELIEVE YOU that the PCGS pictured coin came from a white envelope 1970 Uncirculated Set as sold by the Mint in 1970. It had to have come from one of two sources.

1) the blue outside proof set shown above, or

2) an aftermarket “made up” set that could have had a proof nickel placed where an uncirculated one was supposed to be. 
 

What we ABSOLUTELY HAVE is far too many people crying “bully” anytime someone provides anything other than the information they want to hear. 

Edited November 7, 2022 by VKurtB

[VKurtB]

Now, as to your quantity questions:

1970-S nickels in proof - 2,632,810 of which about 1400ish are in NGC plastic, and the average grade of those is PF67.7  

1970-S nickels in circulation style strikes - 238,832,004 OF WHICH 2,038,134 were sold in white envelope 1970 Uncirculated Sets, or well less than 1% of them. The remaining 99%+ were distributed through the banking system  Of these, ONLY 225 (!!!!) had been NGC slabbed as of two years ago, and THEIR average grade was MS64.9  

So where are they? Overwhelmingly, in the banking system. 

Edited November 7, 2022 by VKurtB

[EagleRJO]

On 11/5/2022 at 4:54 PM, Cing said:

Recently I cut up a 1970 Mint set to obtain the Jefferson Nickle ... it would be graded in MS not Pr.

 @Cingyour description that you "cut up" a mint set to get the Jefferson Nickel and that "it should be graded MS not Pr" was a totally leading question right off the bat. But I gave you the benefit of the doubt as a new member, and posted a clear picture of both a regular 1970 "mint set" that you truly would have to "cut out" to get the nickel and have it grade an MS, as well as a post with a clear picture of a plastic encased "proof set" that you would have to open up or crack out to get to the nickel (not "cut" it out).

On 11/5/2022 at 5:27 PM, EagleRJO said:

If he cut it out of a 1970 "mint set" I think it would be graded MS, but if from a "proof set" it would be graded PF, or did they not have proof sets that year?

Did the set you cut it out of look like the attached, which is a regular 1970 uncirculated "mint set"?

On 11/5/2022 at 10:05 PM, EagleRJO said:

I found the attached 1970 proof set from the San Fran mint on Google. So if the nickel came from that San Fran set I assume that would grade PF/PR [Edited to remove an incorrect proof set].

You came back with the following: with no picture of the set you got the nickel from, even though it was asked that you do that (and which would have been readily available if you did in fact "cut up" a mint set), and of course only replied with a PCG$ TrueView pic with the following replies ... (hmmm).

On 11/6/2022 at 11:17 AM, Cing said:

SO i recently cut up a 1970 Mint Set....Yes Mint Set. Not a Proof Set and submitted it to PCGS as a #84085. They graded it as a PR...and not MS.....Has PCGS ever miss graded a coin before......

On 11/6/2022 at 12:51 PM, Cing said:

... If this was a Proof from a hard covered Proof set it would look better then this.   

Don't feign indignation at being called out. You should have just accepted that people called it as a proof nickel. You did NOT "cut" that coin out of a regular mint set with cellophane mint packaging (just like in my first pic and what you were claiming), which would have been readily available to post a pic if you did cut it from that. When in fact you DID get it from a proof set encased in hard plastic (just like my second pic and what you claimed it did not come from), but of course you couldn't post that. Then you submitted it to PCG$ and tried to claim it was MS on the submission. Did you really think you could just flim-flam PCG$, and prolly post the same garbage to their board, and then got called out there (which I am sure they would have done), so you figured you could just try your luck over here?

I am sure you frantically searched Google for pics of a regular mint set in the cellophane mint packaging without the nickel after being asked for that, and came up with a total blank, and figured you could wing it. So, I called you out for that as trolling for some kind of ammunition to challenge the correct PCG$ PR grade. Sorry bud, I have to call um like I see um. Maybe others who follow you and find this post will not think people on this board are gullible.

Edited January 27, 2023 by EagleRJO

[VKurtB]

BOTH 1970 nickels in my Dansco album DID come from an uncirculated set that I did cut up. In fact, every coin from 1959 on came from a cut up uncirculated set, except when they didn’t offer them. Mine looks NOTHING like yours pictured above. Yours is a proof, and not a particularly nice one. But the ones in the uncirculated set are truly unimpressive. 

Edited November 8, 2022 by VKurtB

[J P M]

On 11/8/2022 at 7:41 AM, VKurtB said:

BOTH 1970 nickels in my Dansco album DID come from an uncirculated set that I did cut up. In fact, every coin from 1959 on came from a cut up uncirculated set, except when they didn’t offer them. Mine looks NOTHING like yours pictured above. Yours is a proof, and not a particularly nice one. But the ones in the uncirculated set are truly unimpressive. 

I agree  a old proof it looks to be. All my mint sets have low MS quality uncirculated coins and none have FS nickels.......None

[EagleRJO]

Scammers like this @Cingperson really burn my butt, if you couldn't tell,  faking their way through life trying to take advantage of people. Either it is a scam, or they got taken buying what they thought was a rare MS 1970 Nickel and figured they would lie about it looking for re-submission ammo and got caught, which is just as bad.

The only thing I'm not sure of is if this scam artist also posted it to the PCG$ board. As much as I slam PCS$ for their price guides, the ppl on their boards are also very knowledgeable and helpful to honest ppl. If this scam artist did post it "over there" I am sure they would have also called them out with equal ferocity.

Edited November 8, 2022 by EagleRJO

[VKurtB]

On 11/8/2022 at 9:38 AM, EagleRJO said:

Scammers like this @Cingperson really burn my butt, if you couldn't tell,  faking their way through life trying to take advantage of people. Either it is a scam, or they got taken buying what they thought was a rare MS 1970 Nickel and figured they would lie about it looking for re-submission ammo and got caught, which is just as bad.

The only thing I'm not sure of is if this scam artist also posted it to the PCG$ board. As much as I slam PCS$ for their price guides, the ppl on their boards are also very knowledgeable and helpful to honest ppl. If this scam artist did post it "over there" I am sure they would have also called them out with equal ferocity.

But what does he gain from attempting to scam us?

[EagleRJO]

On 11/10/2022 at 1:12 PM, VKurtB said:

But what does he gain from attempting to scam us?

Not us, but flim flaming PCG$ or NGC with ammo from the NGC forum. Do you really think he "cut that out" of a regular mint set, or that PCG$ "mis graded" that coin? And if he got ppl to agree with the BS what do you think he was going to do?

[Cing]

WOW...it must be a horrible life not trusting anyone. Hanging out on this board just to belittle people and put them down. Why would I spend money on a coin if I didn't Think it would grade. During Covid I purchased several 1970 Mint sets....matter a fact I'm still purchasing 1970 Mint Sets...Next time l submitte a coin, I will leave it in the Cello just to prove to jerks like you its real. 

 

When I first posted My question. I simple asked Where do #85084 come from. I know the difference between a Proof Set and a Mint Set. I assumed COins from a Mint set would grade MS....  Maybe I was wrong. A simple answer would have be fine. But you all needed to be jerks and insult me. 

 

I am new to NGC not coin collecting......I have found several nice collectors willing to help me.   Have fun jerking each other off. Im moving on..........Have a Blessed Day

[EagleRJO]

@Cing There you go, pretending to be all innocent again and completely making stuff up, and that's why people are criticizing you. It just amazes me that you could possibly be that thick headed and just ignore answers to your questions people had already posted, so the natural conclusion is that you are trying to flim-flam PCG$ and people on the board for your own advantages. You already had your answer to where a #85084 comes from, but then claim PCG$ "miss graded" your mint set coin with that being the submission form box you checked, and then post a TruView pic of a proof coin.

Btw, If you got the MS 1970 Jefferson Nickel from a mint set it would not be individually wrapped in cellophane, it would be part of an entire set. You could have easily posted a pic of the remainder of the set if that really was where you got it from, but of course that never happened. And even if you cut all around the nickel leaving the cellophane around that intact there would be no way to show us that after you submitted it to PCG$ as they would remove it from that and put it in a slab.

If you really are not trying to flim-flam people, go back and re-read all the replies you received, 60 times or more if needed, and particularly the posts by Sandon, until it sinks in so you can post your public apology ... and then we'll talk.  I am taking the under that never happens.

Edited November 12, 2022 by EagleRJO

[VKurtB]

I really wish people (ALL PEOPLE) would stop using the imprecise term ‘mint set’. The Mint does not typically use that term, with a few exceptions, and our using it confuses things. They are called ‘uncirculated sets’ most years, and particularly in 1970.

Edited November 11, 2022 by VKurtB

[“”]

Thinking back, I could never provide pictures of the cellophane after cutting up a mint set. I never kept it! The coin in question is a proof. No doubt about it. Do TPG's make mistakes? Yes they do. Quite a few are clerical in nature dealing with incorrect dates and or mint marks. I just read a thread across the street however where PCGS graded a proof gold coin as MS I believe more than once. The submitter then sent it to NGC who graded as a proof coin. I guess it made a significant difference in value. In that thread I believe the confusion was because the coin in question was a matte proof.

 

 

 

[Sandon]

   I had hoped that this thread would die! Perhaps these will be the final comments, though I have my doubts:

  1. As 1970-S nickels were made and are common in both mint state and proof formats and as 1970 uncirculated coin ("mint") sets were assembled and packaged in San Francisco--note the address on the white envelope--it is possible that a proof was inadvertently packaged with a mint set.  If so, this would be considered a "packaging error" that would only have extra value to collectors in the intact package.  If the OP is telling the truth, he destroyed any such value by removing the coin from the package!  He also made it impossible to verify his claim. The coin certified by PCGS is clearly a proof for reasons stated in my and others' previous post in this thread, so there's no error on the part of PCGS. 

  2.  1970 "mint" sets are of interest as the sole source of 1970-D half dollars and because a minority of them contain the so-called "small date" or "high 7" 1970-S cent, whose most obvious characteristic is actually thinner obverse lettering.  (I actually cherrypicked one of these at a local coin auction some years ago.)  Enough of these sets--themselves numismatic artifacts--have already been destroyed for these coins. Must we finish the rest of them off looking for wayward proofs?