Is This What Full Steps Nickel Looks Like?

Yes I would say you have 6 full steps there, but it might be an AU coin. I see marks but this is a scan I would think and scanners make grading difficult. It could go as high as maybe MS63 though too? Not difficult to find for a 1996 D though, but you have the right idea.

Cool! Sounds good if its FS.

And yes, the scanned images are nice to be able to show images, but both very frustrating as it makes things look both better and worse.

This coin definately has been around, but it's had a gentler life than you'd expect. Nicks, scratches, digs/gouges? The scanner does NOT show the shine and luster, or the depths and degrees of things. But its something. If people know how to read "shadows and tones" they can probably get a pretty good idea about what a coin looks like in real time. Even photos are tough. Shiny things are a challenge to work with! But shiny can also disguise if you can't angle the coin to reflect from different angles.

I have a 1964 too, no steps at all I do 't think! I also have some 80's, a couple looked good through the magnifying glass, but until I scan them I can't say how many steps they have, or other details.

I'm both near and far sighted, wear bifocals, and still need a magnifying glass - early stages cataracts happening I was told recently. And what do I do? I wanna play with coins and make jewelry! I'm an Aries, what can I say....... mwahahaha

Thanks for your feed back, and it's nice to hear how people would grade this coin, so thanks for your impressions ;)

Also, I find a lot of mint state coins that don't have full steps. That get worn off easily.

Lets try to understand this idea of full steps, full split bands, full heads on Liberty quarters and Full Bell Lines. While these features can be worn smooth on all these coins, I think the misunderstanding is that people think if they are missing detail, then it has been worn away.

This is not the case. In most instances on AU and uncirculated coins, the detail was never there in the first place on the coin. This is due to a few different factors or a combination of more than one.

Some reasons are worn dies, weak strikes from dies, debris and grease on dies, over polished dies where the design on the die is polished away. Most always it has something to do with the die condition. A coin can be high mint state condition and still lack some detail.

This is the allure of the search for well struck coins. Some years and mint marked coins have a typical strike detail they exhibit. A typical 1996 D Jefferson nickel obviously is most often found well struck with excellent detail, whereas a 1964 Jefferson may be found with very little.

Thus, we pay a premium, and sometimes quite a lot more than the prices in a Red Book for example for a particular coin if it has that elusive detail.

More details and more to cconsider. Thanks so much for elaborating on the variations and possible reasons.

It's good to know this so people don't toss their coins before trying to find out the sources of the lacks of detail as to whether it's "common" die related.

In the end, I also guess it's good to cross check in the coins sites for varieties to see if what you've got is listed as a collected variety, plus maybe just double check with others with more experience (like in this forum! So many of you have been at this some time and it's so true that real time experience can learn to spot what's value/no value pretty quick.