| Author |
 Replies: 9 / Views: 5,761 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6130 Posts |
While I was taking an inventory of my collection, I stumbled across a '69-S nickel that I had previously saved on account of its outstanding condition and strong strike. However, when I held this coin in my hand again, I couldn't help but notice that the fields of the coin looked smoother than normal, and spots near the rim seemed almost reflective. After thinking it over and comparing it to a known proof (89-S), I think there is a good chance this one is a proof as well. Here are several photos, comparing it to a well-circulated known proof (89-S) and a known non-proof of the same date and comparable condition. The coin in question is in the middle.   Here are some photos of the side, since the proofs that I have found in the past tend to be thicker than business strikes. Possible proof (right) and '69-D (left)  Possible proof (right) and known '89 proof (left)  This coin has obviously seen a moderate amount of handling, which makes it difficult to properly diagnose. The smoothness of the fields and the thickness of the coin certainly indicate that this is a proof, although the lack of detail on the reverse seems atypical--proofs generally have (nearly) perfect strikes, but this coin does not have all six full steps. This may be due to wear, however. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4132 Posts |
Ooops, nevermind, I had the transition year wrong.
Edited by CaptainFwiffo
09/27/2011 5:33 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3345 Posts |
I think its not a proof. I found one from 1957 with its share of wear, and it still had a full steps and a full strike. I think yours just has extra luster.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1431 Posts |
It's quite possible.
1965-1970 nickels are notorious for having weak/mushy steps.
I suppose it would be within reason to assume that some proofs from 68-70 may be somewhat lacking in step detail.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
1028 Posts |
I would say no. It just looks like any other 69-s I've seen. I also just checked my own 69-s proof and that coin would have to have been the worst stuck proof ever to turn out like that. Judging by the amount of detail present on the obverse, the strike would have to have been atrocious for the wear on the Monticello building to look like that. It does, however, look exactly like what I'd expect from a circ.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12437 Posts |
Just a business strike, not a proof. Look at your 1989-S, notice that the mirrored fields are still present in the protected areas but there is no trace of that on the 1969-S. The Monticello detail, or lack thereof, is also important. A Guide Book of Buffalo and Jefferson Nickels lists 69-S business strikes with 5 Steps at 1 in 2,000 and 6 Steps are unknown while 69-S proofs are commonly found with 5 or 6 Full Steps.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Mexico
1304 Posts |
I agree, the lack of luster in the protected fields was the first thing I noticed.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4778 Posts |
Yeah, it's just a business strike nickel.
|
|
New Member
United States
1 Posts |
I found what I believe is a proof today in a nickel roll of same year 1969 s   |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12437 Posts |
 That one is indeed a proof. It does not have much value as an impaired proof but it is still a neat find  |
| |
Replies: 9 / Views: 5,761 |
|
Posted 09/27/2011 9:19 pm
