1964 Jefferson Proof with Retooling Marks?

[rbroederer]

I am looking at a 1964 Jefferson Nickel with what appears to be retooling marks on the Coat/Bust. I somehow remember something about this but can not remember...anyone know?

[mustbebob]

That is pretty interesting, but I don't know if it is a tooling mark. Almost looks like it could be a struck through, or even post mint damage. The fact that it is a proof concerns me. If it was at the mint, I don't think the mint would have allowed it to get out. There were only 3.9 million proofs made in 1964. If this mark was on the die, there would be more out there.

[rbroederer]

That is pretty interesting, but I don't know if it is a tooling mark. Almost looks like it could be a struck through, or even post mint damage. The fact that it is a proof concerns me. If it was at the mint, I don't think the mint would have allowed it to get out. There were only 3.9 million proofs made in 1964. If this mark was on the die, there would be more out there.

Hello Bob, I agree 100%. I looked at about 50 1964 Proof nickels on PCGS site and was able to find these examples of what appears to be similar marks to varying degrees as on the subject coin. The subject coin is graded PR68 by PCGS (Cert #60002326). IMO that would be too high of a grade for a coin with post mint damage. It has been my limited experience that post mint damage like that would make the coin ungradable similar to a scratch for instant. I remember reading something about this once upon a time and have no idea where. I also went back and looked at 1962 and 1963 and found much fewer examples. I think 1964 minted more proofs in that year than all other years except 1981(4.063M) and 1976(4.149M). Thoughts...

[mustbebob]

I agree completely. I do not think it would have graded PR68 if it had post mint damage. In the scheme of things, the number of proofs actually struck is high, but compared to the massive number of circulation strikes for that year, it is still small. I wish I could get my hands on the Mint report for that year to find out exactly how many proof dies were used.
I guess we will never know what caused that area to look that way, but I still have to maintain that it wasn't tooling. Maybe someone else has a guess?

[jcuve]

I am just not sure. It is curious, and I am not sure what is seen in the PCGS photos is the same phenomena or not.