Jefferson Nickel NT or AT?

[SkyMan]

Here's a nickel that is slabbed PCGS MS65. Do you believe this is NT or AT? I'll state my opinion sometime later this weekend. Bruce Lee was kind enough to image this one.

 

 

[Bruceswar]

Having seen this coin in hand and knowing nickel can do some wild things. I say this coin is NT. That nickel is a whale of a coin to photo.

[Dwaine]

I was going to say NT until I saw the toning on the reverse. The streak from the dome through the E and P look as if it was a spill over from the obverse.

 

Looks kind of like an oil streak after it rains and the roads are wet.

[TomB]

I would buy this coin raw, and would believe it to be NT, if it appears in-hand as I interpret the image.

[bsshog40]

I would tend to say NT as these jeffersons can do some wild toning!

[rrantique]

Nt and nice one Sy

[physics-fan3.14]

It may be NT, but I don't like it. And is the strike really that bad?

[WinstonWare]

Well…I would have said AT What would cause this type of natural toning?

[gmarguli]

Looks NT to me.

[TomB]

Well…I would have said AT What would cause this type of natural toning?

Longterm storage in paper products can cause this type of color on nickel. I would suspect that this toning is more likely the result of a Mehgrig album than any other type of album. Jefferson nickels stored for many years in these albums can sometimes take on vivid lime, pink, purple and red colors.

[WinstonWare]

Well…I would have said AT What would cause this type of natural toning?

Longterm storage in paper products can cause this type of color on nickel. I would suspect that this toning is more likely the result of a Mehgrig album than any other type of album. Jefferson nickels stored for many years in these albums can sometimes take on vivid lime, pink, purple and red colors.

 

Ah…I see – thanks. Nice coin Sy

[MikeInFL]

Looks to have a nice skin and coloration not too unusual for Jeff. NT and attractive is my vote...Mike

[SkyMan]

Interesting comments here guys!

 

The price was right and I bought the coin assuming it was AT. The reverse to me just looked a little weird. Since then I have found other Jeffersons in mint sets with comparable toning as the reverse, so at this point I am not sure. I still like how the coin looks though, as it's got some fairly prooflike fields, which really project the toning. I suspect this was causing some of the problems for imaging the coin, as there is a fair amount more detail in the coin than shows on the image. On the other hand the image does quite a good job on capturing the colors of the coin.

[Bruceswar]

It was either give up the color to a degree or the detail. Detail is much easier to explain than color.

[SkyMan]

Bruce, I quite like how the image looks. Thank you very much for imaging the coin!

[jgrinz]

I would say NT with the mint set having a perforation on the back side of the Mint set causing contamination into the nickel mint cell.(Streak)

 

THats my story and I am sticking to it

[James_OldeTowne]

I believe this toning to be perfectly "natural", and for that matter, not all that uncommon. Jefferson nickels often tone like this in Whitman albums. A couple of the coins I've had in my Dansco (for nearly 20 years now) are showing rudimentary toning like that as well.

[jgrinz]

I believe this toning to be perfectly "natural", and for that matter, not all that uncommon. Jefferson nickels often tone like this in Whitman albums. A couple of the coins I've had in my Dansco (for nearly 20 years now) are showing rudimentary toning like that as well.

 

I believe COLORING is NT also as stated but the streak on the reverse is the abnormality. The Obverse looks 100% normal but the reverse albiet natural has that streak which to me looks like a tear in the original cellophane with somewhat UNNATURAL toning coming from it ( brownish )from external contamination ...

 

Either way I have Named this coin :

 

 

 

THE MONTECELLO LIGHTENING STRIKE NICKEL

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SkyMan]

I believe COLORING is NT also as stated but the streak on the reverse is the abnormality. The Obverse looks 100% normal but the reverse albiet natural has that streak which to me looks like a tear in the original cellophane with somewhat UNNATURAL toning coming from it ( brownish )from external contamination ...

 

1957 had cardboard/paper packaging, not cellophane.

 

 

By the way, the Pats got Moss for a steal. It looks like Brady has someone to throw the ball to again. (A good chunk of my chilhood was spent in the Boston area, and I still go back there every year, so while I am a 49ers fan I still root for the Pats too.)

[jgrinz]

Then this was what A Figment of my imagination

 

[TomB]

1957 US Mint Sets were in cardboard and paper packaging while 1957 US Proof Sets were in cellophane.

[SkyMan]

Mike, the above coin is, as stated in the first sentence, an MS coin. What you have shown is the proof mylar flat pack that the Mint started using in 1955 for proofs. Ask around the boards. 1958 was the last year of cardboard/paper holders for mint sets. In 1959 the Mint moved to the cellophane flatpack. That is why for the longest time I did not collect Frankies after 1958 for my toner set.

[jgrinz]

oops

 

dahhhh

 

heheh