Is this 1966 nickel a proof? - found in a coin roll

[VTColonialDigger]

I found this 1966 nickel coin roll hunting yesterday, I noticed how shiny it is and kept it. Any/all opinions welcome, is this a proof or just a super shiny, AU nickel?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[srcdco]

First, there were no proofs in 1966. However, it could be from a Special Mint Set, which were better than average strikes, but not proofs. One thing to check is on the reverse look at Monticello and see how many (if any) steps are showing. There should be 4. Nickels of that era are notorious for having few or no steps showing even on uncirculated specimens. Ones with full steps command much higher prices.

Scott

 

[VTColonialDigger]

First, there were no proofs in 1966. However, it could be from a Special Mint Set, which were better than average strikes, but not proofs. One thing to check is on the reverse look at Monticello and see how many (if any) steps are showing. There should be 4. Nickels of that era are notorious for having few or no steps showing even on uncirculated specimens. Ones with full steps command much higher prices.

Scott

Thanks for clearing up the proof question, as for steps, they appear to be all there on the edges, but in the middle they fade out possibly from slight wear or a poor strike.

 

[srcdco]

Poor strike is more likely the cause of the missing centers on the steps. Nickels of the late 1950's and the 1960's are notorious for this issue.

Scott

 

[port ewen ace]

only downside is the obverse abrasions-- still a $2-4 coin to an amateur collector---- it's pretty. those '60's issues got their reverse dies beaten until they would bleed, so those steps are above normal