1959 Jefferson Nickel, Partial Steps.

to the CCF!

It is a nice nickel for 1959 from a random roll. I would probably agree with AU58.

You can start with the basics such as here but grading of mint state differences takes time even for those who have lots of experience. This one does not appear to be in mint state, more so in the AU circulated range and full steps designations are only used with MS (Mint State) Jefferson nickels. Proof coins are generally expected to have full steps.
1 https://www.coinstudy.com/grading-j...nickels.html and
2 https://www.ngccoin.com/news/articl...eps-nickels/
3 https://www.ngccoin.com/coin-gradin...-five-cents/

The photography method was an iPad on books, green felt background, stack of dimes under the coin to elevate. I shrank it to 600x600 with an image resize app. I agree the result does not seem particularly focused. The coin itself looks better than the picture. I had a hard time getting a focused frame where the glare from the overhead light wasn't a problem.

Just looking at the PCGS Photograde list, those are great examples of what I don't understand about grading. MS61 looks like someone sandblasted it. The strike details are there, but the million tiny scratches are distracting. The MS62 has a dent in the jawline, and Monticello looks like pudding. Is there such a thing as an MS grade coin with a soft strike lacking details, and how is that distinguished from circulation wear? I would say their AU58 example looks better than the MS61 and MS62.

Ok, that's a great point about the buckets. I think that resolves some of my mental dissonance over why some graded circulated coins look so much nicer than ones graded low MS.

However, it immediately begs the question: when you submit a coin to a TPG, how do they decide AU vs. MS? Obviously they can't just take your word for it. So how do they decide that a bag-marked dog with scratches is MS, or a coin with nice detail and shine has been circulated enough to be AU?

Or for that matter, how do collectors decide AU vs. MS for their own coins, since it so drastically affects the acquisition cost?

A coin is found no longer to be Mint State if it displays any wear or rub that they find by looking at the high points that rise up more than the other areas of a coins surface. In the case of a portrait coin, the highest points would be the hair, the ear, and the cheek. Each coin is different though because of the differences in design (see below for more on this) https://coinweek.com/coin-grading-a...-difference/

You can also look at articles like this one I posted above that explain a bit more about mint state for nickels specifically such as the disrupted luster Nick10 mentioned. https://www.coinstudy.com/grading-j...nickels.html

Coin World's book Making the Grade 3rd edition released in 2012 was another example that helped (or should I say is helping lol) me learn because it had images (developed by longtime ANACS grader and authenticator Michael Fahey) detailing what are the high points of each design. The high points maps illustrate the first areas to exhibit wear and are designed to help collectors distinguish between About Uncirculated and Uncirculated coins exactly as you asked. It also has Color-coded maps (developed by James Halperin of Heritage Auction Galleries, who is widely recognized as one of the best coin graders in the hobby) detailing the critical areas for marks on a coin. In other words, the color maps help readers identify the areas on a particular design where a contact mark or other damage will most affect the value or grade if its in that specific area.

Im sure there are other resources with similar info, just more generally what you would need to learn over time. If it was that easy then there wouldnt be specialists who get paid to grade at those TPGs. As usual that book sadly has become harder to find these days. I just saw one for $39.95 on ebay but seems many are selling it now for close to $100 but again not the only copy or resource that might be used to learn out there.

I really liked the Coin Week article! Hadn't come across that one before.

I had already found the Coin Study article and video. While the information presentation is nice, he only grades for MS and XF. It seems like most modern circulation strike Jefferson nickels are going to be in the AU grades for keepers.

datadragon, you should really consider writing a short blog post or beginners article summarizing your three buckets notion with supporting pictures. Most articles and books (including Bowers) really imply the grading scale is a continuous spectrum of quality. Very little mention is made that a nice AU specimen can have far more detail and curb appeal than a low MS coin.

Assuming that panzaldi is not alone in the sentiment that he'd rather have a nice AU coin than a low MS coin, why does market pricing (and indeed, most formal sources) seem to so rigidly favor MS over AU? I am grappling with the concept that whether or not a coin has been handled by the public carries so much weight compared to strike quality and minimizing the stains, scratches, blemishes.

Good answer, and another frequent question since some of the AU58 coins offer better eye appeal than a similar coin that grades MS60 or MS61. In the grading the difference between AU58 and MS60 or 61 is strictly about the presence (or absence) of wear. According to the grade, MS60 will exhibit no circulation wear on the high points yet might have many heavy marks and abrasions from being bounced around other coins, where the AU58 will yield a small amount of wear or rubbing on the highest points of the coin. On the MS60 the strike may not be full, luster may be very dull, and eye appeal therefore might even be quite negative.

So heres a good answer from Joshua McMorrow-Hernandez on PCGS. The technical differences between AU58 and MS60 in terms of wear may be the slightest whiff of circulation rub on the jawline of Abraham Lincoln on the Lincoln Cent or the cheek of Miss Liberty on the Morgan dollar on the lightly worn specimen. However, some collectors might notice that some coins with a wear-based grade of AU58 may have other redeeming qualities that could in fact make it a more attractive coin than an equitable MS60, the latter with no wear but perhaps possessing negative issues affecting its surface quality or eye appeal.

Despite the unequivocal objective, wear-based differences separating an AU58 coin from being an MS60, there are many subjective reasons why some collectors may prefer an AU58 over its MS60 counterpart. The awarding of an MS60 label doesn't guarantee that the given coin will necessarily look especially nice for its grade, and there are many cases in which a collector might find a nicely preserved AU58 the superior specimen from the standpoint of eye appeal. Furthermore, the AU58 will also likely cost less than the similar MS60 specimen, due to its lower technical grade.

Then again, when it comes to raw numbers, the MS60 does offer the collector the higher technical grade. Consequently, in the case of the PCGS Set Registry, the MS60 at the most basic level provides a higher score to the collector than the equitable AU58 could mathematically offer. Yes, the MS60 might cost slightly more - maybe much more - than its AU58 counterpart, depending on the coin. But at the end of the day, the MS60 does afford the collector potentially better positioning for their collection on the PCGS Set Registry, and this can mean the difference between an award for having the best set and being a runner up.

Thus, both AU58 and MS60 grades offer their own sets of benefits to the collector. As with all other aspects of collecting coins, in the case of grade it's up to the hobbyist to decide what purchase might be more advantageous to them and their unique collecting goals. (I will add to this that the MS60 grade would also increase the coins value for resale, although as mentioned there are different collectors who may prefer one over the other).