t-arc

1 hour ago, Nutmeg Coin said:

The coin doesn't look original to me, typical of Great southern's style, you wonder what they are hiding with their large volume.  Same thing with "Centsles".  Poor photography.

As far as I am concerned Way Down South, i.e. “Great Southern” is a great place to shop.  And when buying a raw coin from them, like anywhere else, you just have to be careful.  

Their pictures are sometimes taken at multiple angles giving the coin more depth than it really has.  But overall their pictures a pretty good, based upon my experience.

(I think this coin shows rub on the hip and will come back “58” for that reason.)

does anyone in this thread have an opinion on the 1916 nickel that went along with the 1936  (got an email from pcgs saying both coins had been received last night)

55 minutes ago, WoodenJefferson said:

Is this what the grading service is saying?

NO THEY ONLY GOT IT FRIDAY!  SORRY I DID NOT CLARIFY THAT.  IT WAS MY NOTATION.

=================================

          1936       USA     5 cents

             matte proof  PR-60

=================================

10 minutes ago, Buffalo_Pete said:

Page 190. "The Complete Guide to Buffalo Nickels" Third Edition by David Lange states:

 

"Unless they've been dipped, most 1936 proof nickels show some degree of toning.  This usually takes the form of a hazy or milky film on both sides.  Not especially attractive, it is still valued as a mark of "originality"."

 

Don't do anything to it!  That "milky" finish shows the originality of the coin.

 

Pete

 

Pete

you are right and I would never under any circumstances dip,  clean,  or alter the surfaces in any way.  pcgs has it now and it went to them in one of those rigged pvc-less flips that pcgs requires for submissions.

one thing i always thought about the coin is that it was completely original, never messed with any way.

4 hours ago, coinman_23885 said:

Have you ever thought about giving it a light dip?

No, but in my opinion that would do nothing for the coin.  Would it?  What would you expect to see from a dipping?

Here is a pcgs pr64 satin finish proof that i got on eBay couple years ago.  compare to 1936 nickel above.  

( this was a raw unattributed coin)

both the 1916 and 1936 nickels were picked up by pcgs today at 9:16 am.  so we shall soon have their opinion of both pieces.  the more i look at the 1936 nickel i am convinced it is something other than the typical garden

variety 1936 business strike.  But what it is and under what circumstances it was produced shall remain unknown.

38 minutes ago, WoodenJefferson said:

I'm by no means an expert and buffs are not my thing, but if you were to ask me what I think about the 1936, I'd say it was nothing more than a 'sintered planchet' with a nice strike.

I think we have all beat up on this 1936 nickel enough and we’ll just have to wait n see what pcgs says.  Anyone have an opinion on the 1916 posted along with it above?  It is on is way to pcgs along with the 1936 nickel.

Here is pic of 1916 nickel again.  ( I would grade it PR-58)  The nicest 1916 proof buff you will ever see with a grade below 60!  This is an example of a “58” that rolled around in its plastic flip with the reverse rubbing against the plastic, thus imparting the “rub” to the coin.   At least that is my opinion.

On 7/1/2017 at 9:10 AM, MarkFeld said:

It actually looks more like a matte (proof) than a type one or type two proof. I look forward to hearing about the results. 

The more I look at this 1936 nickel I would also call it a matte proof even though none were officially released that year.  Considering that previous proofs of the buff series were mattes it is not out of the

realm of possibility that they tried something akin to what we see here before proceeding to the satin finish proofs which of course were not well received by collectors.  But lets just see what the pcgs graders

say about this.  

Proofs are sometimes released into circulation by accident by their current owners.  Or perhaps by their relatives who do not know any better.  I picked up a nice 1983-s proof Kennedy half dollar from my bank this way.

55 minutes ago, allmine said:

re: 1936

any striae on the edge?

none

9 hours ago, allmine said:

the 36 is cute... what it looks like under an incandescent bulb will tell you if it's a Type 1

This 1936 buff is an unusual coin.  completely original and has never been played with.  absolutely no mint lustre.  I cannot see this being called a business strike but maybe it is somehow a prototype to the 1936 type one satin finish proof?  Look like one but somehow different.  we will see what the graders say in a couple of weeks.  whatever it is an interesting coin.

5 hours ago, allmine said:

fwiw: did someone on here say it was, like, impossible to keep cherrypicking Matte Proof Buffalos, something like that? I remember my friend cherrypicked TWO 1804 C-2 Half Cents from the same junkbox. Yes he did. So, anything IS possible

Not impossible at all, here are two I picked up over the past few months that are on their way for slabbing.  first one a 1916 matte proof which might go PR-58 because of rub on hip and second is a satin finish proof.

So I think anyway.  

I have never seen a 1915 proof buffalo nickel without this distinctive line on the rim.  Same for 1913 type two and 1914 proofs.  But after proof strikings were finished some of these die pairs were “retired” to

produce business strikes.  Has anyone ever remember seeing one of these three years of proof buffs without the straight line?

Here is a picture of the reverse of a 1915 proof buffalo nickel with that line on the rim, southwest of the buffalo on the rim. 

On 6/28/2017 at 11:13 AM, Insider said:

Back to the cherry-picked nickels...Does anyone here think/know that the incuse line on the reverse rim at 7 is  is also found on some business strikes? 

18 hours ago, allmine said:

I looked a bunch in Heritage; the "line" moves

Slight misalignment of the upper Reverse  die is my guess
that it's a Hallmark of Matte Proof Nickels I have no idea, but it is not limited to them
the line does not appear on the obverse, and you can see that the rim opposite the line is thinner

I first became aware of this line on proof buffalo nickels from the book “Coin Collector’s Survival Manual” by Scott Travers, which is widely known and went  thru a number of different editions.  

It had a page devoted to this line and pictures were included. 

Scott mentioned it on 1913 type two, 1914, and 1915 proof strikes and every one of those three years does have this line on all proofs I have ever seen.  The 1916 seems to come with and without this line.

Never have seen a 1913 type one with this distinctive line.    Some business strikes do seem to come from these left over proof dies as I have seen them on all three years mentioned.

For emphasis:  I have NEVER seen a 1913 type two, 1914, or 1915 matte proof buff that does not have this distinctive line. 

But I have seen this line on 1915-s, 1916-d, and 1917-p.

I want to appologize to all for misdirecting this thread from its original intention.  It was supposed to be about Walter Breen and has digressed far from that because of me as to the veracity of 1917 specimen coinage.

I will also apologize to RWB for making less than flattering comments about him.  I know that he is a prolific numismatic writer who, I guess, has sort of taken over for Breen.   Lets get back to talking about Wally, er, I mean

Walter as that was what we were supposed to be doing in this thread.

I will add the following.

I met this tie-died hippie at the August 1989 ANA convention in my home town of Pittsburgh Pa.  (Home of the 2016 and 2017 Stanley Cup Champion Pittsburgh Penguins!!)   I got the letter concerning the 1935 specimen

nickel from him that day.   I paid a modest sum for the paper and still have it.   It was hard to get a word in with him edge wise as he was constantly being deluged by other collectors to look at their coins.  His shirt was brilliant.

 All and all an unforgettable experience.    Everyone should own a copy of his US coin encyclopedia as well as his proof encylopedia.  

But Take both with a grain of salt too. 

9 minutes ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

I have many suspicions about your success: either you are an incredibly lucky savant who should really play the lottery, the seller you are picking is an incredibly stupid insufficiently_thoughtful_person, or there is some mistake being made in the identification of these pieces. 

Occam's razor suggests one of these is more likely than the other. 

I don't claim to be extremely knowledgeable on buff proofs..... but that's just too much of a lucky streak to be coincidence. 

I do agree with you and can say nothing except that it has happened.

Might as well add this one too.   Pretty sure RWB will not like it.

Here is one I found.  Guess RWB will say it is a no go just like the 1917

I do have some level of experience with buffalo nickel proofs.  Over the past three years I have cherrypicked a total of SEVEN matte and satin finish proofs from eBay as follows..

one 1913 type one matte

one 1915 matte

two 1916 mattes

one 1917 (one we are talking about here)

two 1936 satin finish

1 hour ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

SEGS, as described above, are (were? how old is this slab) using the out-dated and speculative fantasy of a superceded authority. I realize that you've got a dog in the fight, but you're not doing a lot for your case. SEGS is a third world slab, and doesn't really carry much weight. There is no evidence to support your claim. 

I've been there. I've had prooflike business strike coins that I swore were PL's, but the authorities claimed they were proofs. I was disappointed, but in the end, we have to learn, grow, and adapt.

 

SEGS is wrong. You are wrong. Hate to sound mean, but life isn't always pleasant. 

Superceded authority?  OH, I guess that is Walter Breen while the Superceder is RWB?

1 hour ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

SEGS, as described above, are (were? how old is this slab) using the out-dated and speculative fantasy of a superceded authority. I realize that you've got a dog in the fight, but you're not doing a lot for your case. SEGS is a third world slab, and doesn't really carry much weight. There is no evidence to support your claim. 

I've been there. I've had prooflike business strike coins that I swore were PL's, but the authorities claimed they were proofs. I was disappointed, but in the end, we have to learn, grow, and adapt.

 

SEGS is wrong. You are wrong. Hate to sound mean, but life isn't always pleasant. 

well as we all know (and are constantly told) every service but the top two are third world.  This includes anacs and icg.

7 hours ago, Afterword said:

I do not have much confidence in research or science in terms of conclusive answers, as they rarely (and given enough time, perhaps never) turn out to be quite as conclusive after further research and examination.

Having said that, a second opinion regarding the coin in question would seem to be the logical next step in an attempt to determine its proof status. While such a determination by NGC or PCGS would not produce a conclusive answer (at least, in my opinion), it would be sufficient enough for most, and, should they agree with SEGS, afford you vindication.

If they do not agree with SEGS's assessment of the coin, and as you seem to have great confidence in SEGS's opinion, you can always resubmit to them. Of course, SEGS's answer the first time around may not turn out to be so conclusive the second time around. If they are even still in business.

In my opinion, which by no means is conclusive, the SEGS holder, justifiably or not, leaves too much room for reasonable doubt.

 

SEGS has been in business since 1998 and doing a good job in my opinion.  I don’t think they are going away anytime soon