Is this FS or a full set of stairs? 1 1

[Erin33]

[J P M]

That looks like a FS 5 depending on the grader looking at it. The nick on the top step may or may not change to outcome.

[Greenstang]

Erin33

Please include the year in your heading.  
There are some years that are expected to have FS and therefore would not be attributed
as well as there are years where it is nearly impossible to find a FS.

Edited September 3, 2023 by Greenstang

[Erin33]

Sorry about that I am new as of yesterday. it’s a 2006 Jefferson nickel

[Erin33]

Is this true how much this is worth?

[Coinbuf]

On 9/3/2023 at 9:53 AM, Erin33 said:

Is this true how much this is worth?

That is what the PCGS price guide shows, however, the guide is only that, a guide.   A search of auction results from Great Collections or ebay would give you a better real world idea of value.   Also, you are looking at a very high grade in the guide, your coin has numerous marks and would not grade that high in my opinion.  Here is a screen shot of the closed auction results from GC for MS66 full step examples, in all honesty I am not sure your coin would even grade that high or with full steps due to the nick on the top step.   As you can see the sellers of these coins just about broke even if these were bulk submission coins after the costs to grade, slab, and selling fees.   If you cannot submit through the bulk program you would be under water on a coin like this at this grade.

Edited September 3, 2023 by Coinbuf

[NeverEnoughCoins09]

On 9/3/2023 at 11:53 AM, Erin33 said:

Is this true how much this is worth?

It would not grade even close to a  MS67+ it looks pretty circulated. I see several nicks and a couple gouges. You would probably need to find a brand new roll to come across one.

That's a guideline. Just because it's listed as such it does not mean it would sell for that much.There is much more to it than just the price guides unfortunately.

Ex. If I had a sculpture with an estimated value of $1000 but no one has any interest in it or collects what I have. Someone might only be willing to pay $100 for it.

You could also have something worth only $100 but someone is willing to pay $200 because they really want what you have.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. 

[Lem E]

This could also be a SMS coin which would throw all of those MS prices out the window and probably be worth even less.

[Mike Meenderink]

Your coin is severely scratched and would not receive a straight grade. It does have 5FS but the coin is a low grade details specimen. IMO This nickel grades AU Details Scratched. Cheers.

[Coinbuf]

Another swing and miss by the master of wrong information mike.  

[RWB]

On 9/3/2023 at 1:17 PM, Lem E said:

This could also be a SMS coin which would throw all of those MS prices out the window and probably be worth even less.

There were no "Special Mint Sets" in 2006. Only 1965,1966 and 1967.

The coin has damage on the obverse and is likely worth nothing to a collector of modern full step Jeffersons.

[Lem E]

On 9/3/2023 at 2:51 PM, RWB said:

There were no "Special Mint Sets" in 2006. Only 1965,1966 and 1967.

The coin has damage on the obverse and is likely worth nothing to a collector of modern full step Jeffersons.

Aren’t all of the uncirculated mint sets from 2005 to 2010 considered SMS sets? 

[powermad5000]

If this were to be an SMS which I do not believe it to be (I am making this statement based upon the low lighting and presented angles in the photos) that somehow was put into circulation (not that couldn't possibly ever happen but is not likely), we would need to ask the OP where they obtained this piece from. To the OP, was this coin obtained from cash register change?

I am thinking most likely it was and this is a normal business strike circulation nickel as that thought has the highest percentage of being true. Using the normal business strike theory which I am going to adhere to here, the coin is not severely scratched as previously stated. It has some of the typical markings of production nickels across the face details on the obverse from other nickels hitting it after ejection from striking, as well as some other hits and other relatively very minor hits on both the obverse and reverse, with mostly clean fields. I would say this coin could possibly grade as MS 64 5FS, but then other photos with some better lighting and other angles would be necessary to confirm that. I see a hit as noted by @J P M on the top step that to me would preclude a 6FS designation.

The prices you were asking about can realize those values listed depending upon the auction and bidders involved, but those prices are also for specimens that are nearing, or nearly flawless. Your coin does not come close to those grades, I am sorry to say. I would definitely not send this coin into any TPG for grading purposes as this would surely result in a net loss of funds doing so.

[Sandon]

On 9/3/2023 at 4:20 PM, Lem E said:

Aren’t all of the uncirculated mint sets from 2005 to 2010 considered SMS sets? 

   The mint called and labeled the sets it issued in lieu of proof and uncirculated coin sets from 1965 through 1967 "Special Mint Sets". They contain coins that are usually at least somewhat prooflike. The 2005 to 2010 sets were simply sold by the mint as "uncirculated coin sets" but contain coins that have a somewhat coarser or "matte-like" finish than those issued for circulation and are accurately referred to as "satin finish" or "matte finish" uncirculated. They look nothing like the 1965-67 SMS coins. I think it is misleading to refer to any coins other than those from the 1965-67 sets as "SMS". This includes the so-called 1964 "SMS" coins, whose origins are undetermined.

  To @Erin33: The term "FS" means "full steps" (5 or 6), not "a full set of stairs". Full steps are usually the norm on uncirculated pieces from 2006 to date, whose obverse is in lower relief than on the 1938-2003 design, allowing the steps to strike up better.  Most of the issues in the Jefferson nickel series that are valuable with "full steps" are dated from 1951 to 1970. Based on the photos, your 2006-D nickel would probably grade approximately MS 63 and have a retail value of about 50 cents if a circulation issue and $3 if a "matte finish" issue from an uncirculated coin set.

[EagleRJO]

On 9/3/2023 at 1:17 PM, Lem E said:

This could also be a SMS coin which would throw all of those MS prices out the window and probably be worth even less.

On 9/3/2023 at 3:51 PM, RWB said:

There were no "Special Mint Sets" in 2006. Only 1965,1966 and 1967.

Both NGC and PCG$ list SMS strikes for the 2006-D 5C, where perhaps the meaning is "Special Mint Strike" ...

https://www.ngccoin.com/coin-explorer/united-states/nickels/jefferson-five-cents-1938-date/822432/2006-d-sms-5c-ms/?des=ms

https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/2006-d-5c-monticello-satin-finish/94163

On 9/3/2023 at 1:06 PM, Coinbuf said:

That is what the PCGS price guide shows, however, the guide is only that, a guide.

The PCG$ guide prices have really been wacked out lately (and thus the $ for the S ).  They adjusted guide prices way up during the pandemic spike and never corrected them when prices came back down to reality.  The NGC guide prices, or maybe just a bit above that, have been much closer to what coins are going for in auctions.

[Lem E]

On 9/3/2023 at 4:30 PM, Sandon said:

I think it is misleading to refer to any coins other than those from the 1965-67 sets as "SMS". This includes the so-called 1964 "SMS" coins, whose origins are undetermined.

  

I wasn’t really trying to mislead anyone. I guess I am just more apt to use NGCs lingo and that is what they refer to these coins as. I believe the ATS crowd would call them “satin finish”. 

[RWB]

On 9/3/2023 at 5:33 PM, EagleRJO said:

Both NGC and PCG$ list SMS strikes for the 2006-D 5C, where perhaps the meaning is "Special Mint Strike" ...

The same term must never have multiple meanings. Highly confusing and subject to abuse.

Hence "matte" is reserved for only Lincoln and Buffalo early proof made from sandblasted dies (1909-1916). Any other use requires solid explanations.

[Lem E]

On 9/3/2023 at 5:42 PM, RWB said:

The same term must never have multiple meanings. Highly confusing and subject to abuse.

Hence "matte" is reserved for only Lincoln and Buffalo early proof made from sandblasted dies (1909-1916). Any other use requires solid explanations.

I agree. Terminology can be a real problem in this hobby. 

[VKurtB]

On 9/3/2023 at 3:20 PM, Lem E said:

Aren’t all of the uncirculated mint sets from 2005 to 2010 considered SMS sets? 

Yes they are.

[VKurtB]

On 9/3/2023 at 5:42 PM, RWB said:

The same term must never have multiple meanings. Highly confusing and subject to abuse.

Hence "matte" is reserved for only Lincoln and Buffalo early proof made from sandblasted dies (1909-1916). Any other use requires solid explanations.

In numismatics, the same term quite often has a different meaning, depending on the era being discussed. “Matte” and “SMS” are merely the latest two to prove that fact. Ironically, even as Numismatist of the Year, you don’t get to decide these things. Your title does NOT include “oracle status” deciding on how terms are used. You get to use terms like “should never”, and I’d sympathize or even agree. But when you throw around terms like “must never”, you just come across as a jerk.

[VKurtB]

On 9/3/2023 at 2:51 PM, RWB said:

There were no "Special Mint Sets" in 2006. Only 1965,1966 and 1967.

The coin has damage on the obverse and is likely worth nothing to a collector of modern full step Jeffersons.

But both TPGS services disagree. 

[J P M]

It is a fact 2006 SMS, Sorry Roger..Also 2005 SMS coins

Edited September 4, 2023 by J P M

[Sandon]

On 9/3/2023 at 5:56 PM, Lem E said:

I wasn’t really trying to mislead anyone.

   I didn't mean to imply that you intended to mislead anyone or that you originated the term "SMS" to describe these coins. Both the Redbook and Coin World describe them as "satin finish". I think that "matte finish", which I have also seen used, is acceptable, as "matte" has been defined as "a dull, often rough finish, as on glass, metal or paper." (American Heritage Dictionary at 805 (1973)). I disagree with the usage of "SMS" for them by the grading services for the reasons I previously stated. 

[J P M]

On 9/3/2023 at 10:08 PM, Sandon said:

   I didn't mean to imply that you intended to mislead anyone or that you originated the term "SMS" to describe these coins. Both the Redbook and Coin World describe them as "satin finish". I think that "matte finish", which I have also seen used, is acceptable, as "matte" has been defined as "a dull, often rough finish, as on glass, metal or paper." (American Heritage Dictionary at 805 (1973)). I disagree with the usage of "SMS" for them by the grading services for the reasons I previously stated. 

I also disagree with the SMS on the newer coins. I think SMS  should only reference the 65,66and 67 coins .ATS calls it Satin Finish . It should have been something different for NGC like SMF (Special Matt Finish) to late to change it now.

Erin there are many factors to consider when looking at coins. Keep on trying. Don't give up ya never know what you will find.

Edited September 4, 2023 by J P M

[RWB]

On 9/4/2023 at 8:20 AM, J P M said:

I also disagree with the SMS on the newer coins. I think SMS  should only reference the 65,66and 67 coins .ATS calls it Satin Finish . It should have been something different for NGC like SMF (Special Matt Finish) to late to change it now.

Yep. NGC (and anyone else) is wrong to use an abbreviation so closely associated with 1965-67 for some other purpose. One term; one meaning.

[VKurtB]

On 9/4/2023 at 10:58 AM, RWB said:

Yep. NGC (and anyone else) is wrong to use an abbreviation so closely associated with 1965-67 for some other purpose. One term; one meaning.

NGC HAS reconsidered the term and has decided it is appropriate. They don’t consult you. 

[EagleRJO]

I would think that since there are less of them another term perhaps could be used for the 1965-1967 Special Mint Sets, which technically did have a special strike.  Maybe Special Mint Proof Set or SMPS

[Sandon]

On 9/4/2023 at 6:51 PM, VKurtB said:

NGC HAS reconsidered the term and has decided it is appropriate. They don’t consult you. 

  And we don't consult them either!

On 9/4/2023 at 7:00 PM, EagleRJO said:

I would think that since there are less of them another term perhaps could be used for the 1965-1967 Special Mint Sets, which technically did have a special strike.  Maybe Special Mint Proof Set or SMPS

 Why not just call them what the mint called them--Special Mint Sets!

[EagleRJO]

On 9/4/2023 at 7:10 PM, Sandon said:

Why not just call them what the mint called them--Special Mint Sets!

Just tossing out a suggestion instead of joining the match.  Are they not "proof" coins?  Why not call a spade a spade considering the mint calls these sets with a special planchet and strike "proof sets", which may have changed over the years.

And it they are a "special" type of proof or uncirculated set add that descriptive term.

[I checked, and these 1965-1967 sets were not struck twice or on polished planchets like other proof coins]

Edited September 4, 2023 by EagleRJO

[VKurtB]

On 9/4/2023 at 6:10 PM, Sandon said:

And we don't consult them either!

Maybe YOU don’t, but I CLEARLY DO.  I am fully and completely one TPGS firm guy - NGC ONLY!

Edited September 4, 2023 by VKurtB