Is this uncirculated or a proof 1964 full step nickle

[coinumismatist]

hi I bought a 1964 nickel from a coin shop. The store was really attentive to their proofs, and had their coins labeled by dates and mint mark. All of the uncirculated pics that I have see looks like this nickel but also all of the proofs kind of looks like this nickel. I wrote a post on cointalk but all I got were possibly a proof or maybe a proof no definite answer either way, so I'm hoping its a uncirculated. Thanks

[Conder101]

Your images are way too small to be able to tell anything, and when you blow them up they are out of focus and pixelated. We need better pictures.

[coinumismatist]

Sorry about that. 

[JKK]

It looks to me like a proof, but not a high grade of proof due to the impairment of luster. The big smear that looks like a cloud about to rain on Monticello is one thing; all the little droplet spots are another. I don't think it could get above PR-60. It also looks as though the continuity of six full steps might be impaired. It has five but I can't swear it has six.

In addition to the remnants of mirror finish and the depth of strike, the tell of its proofness is the way this coin's surface curves gently up to the outer rim. They haven't always been that way, but when you see it, it's pretty diagnostic.

[coinumismatist]

Thanks for answering my question.  I don't know why that cloud is there because it's not showing on the coin

[JKK]

1 minute ago, coinumismatist said:

Thanks for answering my question.  I don't know why that cloud is there because it's not showing on the coin

A good testament to the unreliability of grading from photos, eh? Maybe it only shows at a certain angle or in a certain light.

[bsshog40]

As stated, you have a proof and a low grade one at that. I would bet that the cloud on the reverse is probably some hazing. Sometimes hazing looks a lot worse in a picture than inhand.