OK Tropicalbats. As previously mentioned there are now three specimens in the analytical testing pool:
1. 1958-P UNC RAW BB. Acquired.
2. 1959-P UNC RAW BB. Acquired.
3. To be purchased a normal nickel looking 1958-P or 1959-P AU/UNC as a standard testing specimen.
4. TBD = A black glossy or non-glossy blue or non-blue toned Jeff 5C specimen. RAW or
TPG labeled improperly annealed. Outside of the 1958 & 1959-P Jeff 5C population.
As I go through the universe based on the level of the collector on
ebay so to speak I do see grayish specimens called BB's and others where the surface is NOT glossy but rough which is diagnostic of environmental damage or if outside of 1958-P & 1959-P probably just black darkened due to sulfides/chlorides ONLY and these are just environmental damage. However I think what will be VERY INSTRUCTIVE is a raw/BLACK/glossy or not glossy/near UNC or UNC black specimen not of 1958-P or 1959-P. We see two good candidates recently by CoinHI but if slabbed is the person willing to break them out for this study, retain the
TPG label of course with the coin and PROCEED with the testing which again will require 1-2 mm of edge polishing. Of course with slabbed PCGS/NGC improper annealed coins not of 1958-P or 1959-P is their a blue undertone due to cobalt and if not this would be good a good candidate anyway. As we proceed forward it can be shown that all other nickels outside of the current two Philly years of 1958 & 1959 are not BB's since the Co levels are not elevated. Elevated to what level? We currently do not know. Co appears in nickel as an ore refined contaminant. But in 1958-1959 current research shows just at single digit ppm levels if not a BB type. To be determined. So having said this should narrow your field of pics submissions but a dark specimen of this period without a blue glossy tone is also a MUST IMO to report on why dozens of people now on
ebay are selling BB's currently and they are not of the diagnostic glossy/blue tone appearance. JPL