Definitive Test For Black Beauty Nickels

I would say it's very hard to tell if it's a Black Beauty nickel in a picture; lighting will affect the surface's appearance.
Take your coin to a knowledgeable local dealer for a more accurate response.
BTW, Proof Coins mostly look black in pictures...

Have to agree that this new posted nickel is most likely not a BB.

I plan my project to start in January 2027.

Unfortunately its no good since its PCGS slabbed. Here is my proposed analytical methodology at this point in time = Black Beauties require both a surface shot and a polished edge shot because the phenomenon is entirely a surface chemistry result of improper annealing, not a structural defect. During 1958 and 1959, the nickel feedstock supplied to the U.S. Mint likely carried elevated cobalt impurity levels—possibly even above 0.1%!?, which would have altered how the cupronickel alloy responded to annealing heat. When overheated, this cobalt bearing alloy forms a blue black, glossy oxide layer that is visually distinctive on Uncirculated coins. A surface shot preserves this unaltered skin so SEM/EDS can document the cobalt&-influenced oxidation chemistry, while XRF captures the surface biased readings that differ from the interior. Because the Black Beauty effect exists only in the outer few microns, the surface shot records the metallurgical signature responsible for the color.

A polished edge shot is equally important because it demonstrates that the interior alloy remains completely normal with the exception of Cobalt (Co). Probably. Polishing removes the cobalt enhanced oxide layer and exposes a flat, uniform surface for XRF to measure the true bulk composition and also to take a non-corrosion layer SEM/EDS target shot. This confirms that the cobalt impurity influenced only the surface oxidation behavior during overheating, not the interior matrix. SEM/EDS at the polished edge also verifies that Black Beauties are annealing driven surface anomalies, not structural errors. Together, the two geometries establish the complete picture: normal interior alloy + cobalt influenced annealed surface = Black Beauty, providing the contrast needed for analytical work comparing these coins to standard 1958-59-P Jefferson nickels. These are not sintered errors which are dark gray and porous. Any connotation to a sintered planchet is a TPG error. Additionally - Improper alloy mix is the wrong classification for Black Beauties because their interior metal composition is completely normal for 1958-59-P Jefferson nickels, with no evidence of abnormal bulk chemistry or mixed metal contamination. The blue-black appearance comes from surface oxidation behavior during overheating, not from an alloy level mistake. The most plausible metallurgical cause is that the nickel feedstock delivered to the Mint in 1958 and 1959 in Philadelphia contained elevated cobalt impurity levels—likely above 0.1%?. Cobalt at this level does not alter the bulk alloy enough to qualify as an "improper mix," but it does change how the surface oxide forms when the planchets are annealed too hot. This produces the glossy, bluish & black skin characteristic of Black Beauties while leaving the interior alloy completely standard. Because the core composition remains correct and only the surface oxide is abnormal, the proper classification is improper annealing, not improper alloy mix at this time (in theory). It seems also in this study to add a fourth specimen - a so-called sintered Jefferson nickel outside of 1958/1959 Philly group which has that BB glossy blue black look. JPL

Correct. Thanks. News to me as I don't collect these errors. Major grading companies no longer use the term sintered planchet in their current attribution vocabulary*, and you will not see it on modern labels. PCGS, NGC, ANACS, and CACG all use improper annealing as the standardized designation. The shift happened as TPGs aligned terminology with metallurgical accuracy: U.S. Mint planchets are not powder metal, so "sintered" was always a misnomer.

So how can TPG's differentiate between improper annealing vs. environmental corrosion?

How TPGs differentiate mint annealing vs. environmental damage
Even without SEM/EDS, the physical differences are stark. Here are the diagnostics they rely on:

1. Surface texture
Improper annealing: Smooth, metallic, non-porous surface; luster remains visible under the oxide film.

Environmental corrosion: Pitted, granular, or "frosty" texture; luster is broken or absent.

2. Color uniformity
Improper annealing: Even, stable gunmetal/blue-black across fields and devices.

Environmental: Blotchy, patchy, streaked, or two-tone; often brown-black or green-black.

3. Device edges
Improper annealing: Oxide layer is continuous over devices; no haloing.

Environmental: Darkening creeps into recesses first; raised devices often remain lighter.

4. Strike behavior
Improper annealing: Strike is normal; metal flows cleanly.

Environmental: Weak or mushy strike from surface degradation.

**5. Stability over time
Improper annealing: Color is stable for decades; does not flake or change.

Environmental: Continues to evolve — darkens, spots, or develops texture changes.

**6. Rim and edge diagnostics
Improper annealing: Edge coloration matches the faces.

Environmental: Edges often show different color because corrosion is air exposed, not furnace formed.

The bottom line
A TPG can still tell the difference because annealing oxidation is a thin film metallurgical phenomenon, while environmental corrosion is chemical degradation of the metal itself. These two leave permanent, visually distinct signatures that don't disappear with age.

Which is why I am doing this October-December comment period besides the budget reasons. A typical investigation like the WWII Jeffs was $300-400 for analytical costs for XRF and SEM/EDS. Mostly the later instrument SEM/EDS. JPL

A quick ebay search and I found these coins.

Improperly annealed planchets come in many different denoms, years, and colors. The Black Beauties are the more minor forms of this error but gained popularity early on amongst error collectors and hence got a fancy name.

I had a top expert convinced my above 1959 example was not an improperly annealed error which is what prompted me to get it graded. That example was obvious to me as a genuine error but I would not expect minor examples to be accurately labeled by the majority of TPG workers especially outside of the 1958-59 Jefferson examples.