The 3-legged buffalo being unique as it is, has anyone ever identified the....

[James_OldeTowne]

.... original die that was filed down to produce the variety? In other words, do numismatists know of coins struck from the reverse die prior to it being filed down?

 

Also, were there two obverse die mated to the three-legged reverse?

 

Thanks in advance.

[AYA3]

I have thought about this also, but am not sure what the answer to your questions would be.

However, a good resource that may have some helpful information would be Ron Pope. He has accumulated a tremendous amount of data including photographs with the publications of his book(s) on Buffalo Nickels - The Abraded Die Varieties, (now in the 11th printing from October 2008).

 

Keep us posted on what you do find out about this popular variety.

 

Andy

[MarkFeld]

.... original die that was filed down to produce the variety? In other words, do numismatists know of coins struck from the reverse die prior to it being filed down?

 

Also, were there two obverse die mated to the three-legged reverse?

 

Thanks in advance.

Seriously, James, you've never seen the pictures of the die, while it still had 5 legs on it?

 

[WoodenJefferson]

Link to Story

 

If you take a look, one of our resident posters here helped put this together. We need to prod Mr. Lange into some investigative results since this was published.

 

Edit: you will need Adobe Acrobat to open this PDF

[PerryHall]

Unlikely. Any die markers were probably removed when they removed the buffalo's front leg by over polishing the die.

[DWLange]

I know of just the single die pair. The only thing that distinguishes these dies is their extreme erosion and the missing foreleg. I have seen various degrees of this erosion on both obverse and reverse, so it appears that quite a few 3-legged nickels were coined before this pair was retired, most likely at the same time. There's no evidence that either die was ever mated to a replacement.

[Tradedollarnut]

You can't file a die with an emory board and remove details like was done on the nickel - the legs are recessed on the die.

[WoodenJefferson]

Theoretically it is possible to remove enough of the reverse die to create the illusion that the right foreleg is completely missing, but in most of the strikes I‘ve seen, there is enough hint left that barely outlines the leg.

 

The bison’s right foreleg and right hind leg are the shallowest parts of the incused die and it would not take much to make details vanish. In order to remove a clash mark, particular care would be taken in that specific area, rather than across the entire face of the die.

 

I understand where your coming from with an emery board, but the die polishers also had emery sticks where they could concentrate their efforts in a rather small area in order to remove anomalies.

 

Board/flat, stick/rounded, but they were still called emery boards.

[Tradedollarnut]

Theoretically it is possible to remove enough of the reverse die to create the illusion that the right foreleg is completely missing, but in most of the strikes I‘ve seen, there is enough hint left that barely outlines the leg.

 

The bison’s right foreleg and right hind leg are the shallowest parts of the incused die and it would not take much to make details vanish. In order to remove a clash mark, particular care would be taken in that specific area, rather than across the entire face of the die.

 

I understand where your coming from with an emery board, but the die polishers also had emery sticks where they could concentrate their efforts in a rather small area in order to remove anomalies.

 

Board/flat, stick/rounded, but they were still called emery boards.

 

Doesn't matter - if you efface just the leg on the die, you leave a big depression - which leaves a big mound on any coin struck by that die. The emory stick idea had to have been someone's imagination.

 

Of course it was done by lapping the entire die too severely thus reducing the single leg's depth dramatically - to near zero.

[RWB]

Doesn't matter - if you efface just the leg on the die, you leave a big depression - which leaves a big mound on any coin struck by that die.

 

Glad to see that at least one other person understands this! I've been pounding this into "overdate" people for years, but they just don't grasp the idea that one cannot "grind off" a numeral on a die.

 

[fishfinder]

let's post em?

[WoodenJefferson]

I am compelled to respond to tradedollarnut and RWB, but since I do not exactly know how and with what materials the mint employees used to polished dies in 1936 & 1937, I cannot.

 

I do know that the last process is lapping, using an abrasive compound suspended in a matrix and considering the small diameter of the die face, it would not take much to obliterate devices from an over zealous employee.

[RWB]

My comment referred to a spot reduction in relief - which would produce a raised area on the coin.

[WoodenJefferson]

Question....would this process (polishing/lapping of the dies) also lower the stacking rim?

[RWB]

Dies were (are) slightly convex, so there was probably a tendency to preferentially lap more form the center or rims. This would make the central portion higher but with less detail; same for the rim and periphery.

[Conder101]

In order to remove a clash mark, particular care would be taken in that specific area, rather than across the entire face of the die.

Only if it was a very light clashmark. Trying to remove a heavy clashmark by spot polishing would create a depression in the die and a raised area on the coin. If you wanted to try and remove a heavy clash you would do better to lap the entire surface and take the whole thing down evenly.

 

Question....would this process (polishing/lapping of the dies) also lower the stacking rim?

Considering the rim is lower on the die than the field, as you grind down the field of the die the distance between the field and the rim decreases so yes the height of the rim on the struck coin would be reduced.