• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

1935 Proof or Special Strike Buffalo Nickel on Ebay

43 posts in this topic

Reminds me of the "specimen" the doctor takes in those little cups....

 

Can't tell anything from the photos.

 

The idea for proof coins occurred to Henry Howell in 1935 and the first samples for approval were made in March 1936 - they were quarters.

 

As for the description, the Breen authentication is not worth the paper it’s written on. Breen did not understand how proofs were made and certainly had no information on “satin” or “specimen” coins. If the seller is the same one who posts on the PCGS board with that screen name, he has posted many unsubstantiated claims for alleged “specimen” and other “special coins” including 1917 “proofs.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if it is legitimate, which I doubt it, $6,000 is too much money.
If PCGS or NGC were to label the coin a "Specimen" - and my large bet is they won't - it would bring multiples of the current asking price. $6000 would be a steal for the real deal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the description, the Breen authentication is not worth the paper it’s written on. Breen did not understand how proofs were made and certainly had no information on “satin” or “specimen” coins.

 

Yeah, for sure...... I would have had more of a warm fuzzy feeling about it without the letter of authenticity.... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reminds me of the "specimen" the doctor takes in those little cups....

 

Can't tell anything from the photos.

 

The idea for proof coins occurred to Henry Howell in 1935 and the first samples for approval were made in March 1936 - they were quarters.

 

As for the description, the Breen authentication is not worth the paper it’s written on. Breen did not understand how proofs were made and certainly had no information on “satin” or “specimen” coins. If the seller is the same one who posts on the PCGS board with that screen name, he has posted many unsubstantiated claims for alleged “specimen” and other “special coins” including 1917 “proofs.”

I have never ever heard of such an animal, ever.....Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member: Seasoned Veteran

The reported 1935 "specimen" nickel is mentioned in my book The Complete Guide to Buffalo Nickels, but I've never examined it in person. The coin for sale is certainly a bold strike from fresh dies at the very least, but I can't comment on its status from just a photo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coinman 23885 states, "Even if it is legitimate, which I doubt it, $6,000 is too much money."

 

Mark Feld states, "If PCGS or NGC were to label the coin a "Specimen" - and my large bet is they won't - it would bring multiples of the current asking price. $6000 would be a steal for the real deal."

 

You both base your opinion on 'if the coin is truly what it states to be', but one of you states even so it wouldn't be worth 6K while the other states it would be worth multiples of 6K.

 

Which is closer to the truth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coinman 23885 states, "Even if it is legitimate, which I doubt it, $6,000 is too much money."

 

Mark Feld states, "If PCGS or NGC were to label the coin a "Specimen" - and my large bet is they won't - it would bring multiples of the current asking price. $6000 would be a steal for the real deal."

 

You both base your opinion on 'if the coin is truly what it states to be', but one of you states even so it wouldn't be worth 6K while the other states it would be worth multiples of 6K.

 

Which is closer to the truth?

The 1927 "Specimen" examples (of which I believe there are five?) are worth multiples of the $6000 figure. So I think it stands to reason that a (population 1) 1935 example would be, as well.

 

The defense rests, your honor. ;)

 

 

Lot

2168

1927 Special Strike 5C SP65 PCGS....

2009 April-May Cincinnati, OH (CSNS) US Coin Auction #1124

 

 

 Featured Item

Sold for: $47,150.00 (includes BP )

Currency Converter

Bid Source: Internet

Auction Ended On: Apr 30, 2009

Item Activity: 12 Internet/mail/phone bidders

953 page views

 

Printable auction results for all items in the 2009 April-May Cincinnati, OH (CSNS) US Coin Auction.

Specimen 1927 Buffalo Nickel, SP65

Probably Struck From Chromium-Plated Dies

One of Only Three Pieces Known

1927 Special Strike 5C SP65 PCGS. Twenty years ago, I closely examined one of the most interesting discoveries that has ever crossed my desk. Three Specimen 1927 Buffalo nickels had just been certified by NGC after being sold to Jim Halperin at a coin show. The source of these pieces was unknown. However, after consulting with Walter Breen it seemed reasonable to conclude that these coins came from the estate of John Sinnock. Sinnock was a "quiet and unassuming" man, according to Neil Harris, former editor of The Numismatist, but he was "always trying new things." Sinnock's collection was consigned to the joint ANA-CNA auction conducted by Kelly and Charlton in Detroit in 1962. In that auction, lot 352 contained 10 Buffalo nickels. Three were dated 1927, three 1930, and four 1934. All were described as Uncirculated and the lot sold for $60 on a $75 estimate. Of course, no one knows today whether the three Specimen coins were the same three 1927 nickels in this lot from Sinnock's estate, but Walter Breen thought it was a reasonable conjecture.

One of the problems encountered when these coins first appeared is that they were totally unsuspected. There is no actual documentation that says such coins were struck. No one knew they existed. And yet when they appeared the physical evidence from the coins themselves was incontrovertible. When John Albanese of NGC examined the coins, he stated: "I could have sworn they were Proof." However, "It's terribly hard to call them a Proof without any backup. ... We couldn't call them Uncirculated or a Proof. They are definitely something special. We felt classifying them as Specimen was the proper thing to do."

Jim Halperin purchased two of the coins from an unspecified source. His impression at the time was noted in a Coin World article shortly after purchase: "Two of the coins came to me as standard MS-65s, but when I examined them, I was impressed by their extraordinary texture. It reminded me of the Satin Finish Proofs minted in 1936, but to see texture like that on a 1927 mintage was unbelievable! It didn't seem possible."

Several months of on-again, off-again investigation of these pieces ensued. It was suggested that these special nickels were distributed to members of the Assay Commission. The problem with this theory is that the Assay Commission only dealt with gold and silver coins. There also was a medal struck and given to members of the 1927 Assay Commission. What was certain about these pieces is that the reverse die was leftover from the matte proof strikings from 1913-1916. This was first observed by Walter Breen who wrote an opinion of one of the coins where he stated in part: " ... with complete knife rims, in all details comparable to 1913-16 'Type I' Proofs. Surfaces are satin finish and untampered. (The diagonal line on reverse flat rim about 8 o'clock is in the original die from which hubs and working dies came; no business strikes are brought up enough in strike to show it.)"

The first breakthrough in discovering the origin of these coins came from an entry in the 1928 Report of the Director of the Mint: "At the Philadelphia Mint a chromium plating plant has been installed and is being used for greatly improving the wearing qualities of dies, coin collars, machinery parts and models." George Hunter at the Philadelphia Mint said chromium-plated dies had been used on U.S. proof coinage since 1972, and he said these dies left telltale signs when they were used. Chromium-plated dies show microcracking in a "crazing pattern." In more common parlance, coins struck from such dies show a "dry riverbed look" in the fields. This microcracking is very subtle and is more easily seen toward the edge of the coin in the thin area between the light and dark areas of the coin's surface. Strong magnification is also required, he suggested between 10x and 50x. The three coins all had evidence of microcracking. On this particular coin the evidence can only be seen on the obverse because the plastic lip of the PCGS encasement covers the reverse rim.

It is our opinion that these Specimen strikings most closely conform to Dr. Judd's definition of an experimental coin:

 

" ... include those struck with any convenient dies to try out a new metal, such as aluminum, a new alloy, such as goloid, or a new denomination; those which represent a new shape, such as the ring-dollars; those which represent a new use of an accepted metal, such as nickel for a ten-cent piece; and those representing changes in planchets for the purpose of preventing counterfeiting, sweating, filling or the clipping of the edges of the coins. Those struck in the proper metal, where it is specified, are experimental pieces ... ."

 

While these pieces do not neatly fit into any of the categories listed by Dr. Judd, one can easily see that coins struck from a new process would fit into the experimental coin category.

The striking details on this piece are, of course, beyond reproach. No trace of weakness can be seen on either side. Because of the plastic encasement it is impossible to see the curved die scratch on the left side of the reverse rim. The coin displays all the necessary features to qualify it as a Satin Finish proof. Each side shows lovely light blue and rose colored toning. This particular coin can be distinguished from the two others known by the presence of a tiny spot on the end of the Indian's nose, a cluster of carbon specks below the chin, and several in the reverse field that are no higher than the bison's hooves.

Ex: Jim Halperin; Larry Whitlow; Andy Lustig; "Southern Gentleman." (#3987)

View large image(s) of this item

 

Shipping Description: Coins & Currency (view shipping information)

 

Sales Tax information  |  Terms and Conditions

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure it would be OK at $6K but still....what is with this Specimen deal anyway? Why is it so important? Like DL said it looks like a nice strike but so what? I can find a 1935 Buff with a good strike for $100. Plus, just using the photo, it looks rather dull in luster and no toning (something I personally like) so it doesn't stand out to me. At least not anymore than a $100 "specimen" I can find at any show.

 

I'd assume the coin DL mentioned this in his book was based on the Breen attribution. Yes? No?

 

BTW, is this coin (if true) similar to the reported 1927 specimen I've read about? Just curious... hm

 

jom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm aware of the 2009 April-May Cincinnati Sale, but the coin there was graded SP65 by PCGS. Do you think this coin grades as high (it is a bit hard to tell)? Of the $47,000, how much of the premium was due to the grade (i.e. what do the other two or so sell for)? I don't have the population reports in front of me, but wasn't the SP65 the finest known example?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm aware of the 2009 April-May Cincinnati Sale, but the coin there was graded SP65 by PCGS. Do you think this coin grades as high (it is a bit hard to tell)? Of the $47,000, how much of the premium was due to the grade (i.e. what do the other two or so sell for)? I don't have the population reports in front of me, but wasn't the SP65 the finest known example?

 

PCGS: 1 65 and 1 66

 

NGC: 5, all of them 65.

 

I am fairly confident that the two PCGS examples were once in NGC holders and a still being reflected in the NGC census.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the description was written, additional documentation has been discovered regarding the mint's use of chromium plating. Nothing in the documents mentions any year except 1927, until 1937 and later proof coins. Chromium plating was also used on some of the 1943 cent dies. Details will be in the “National Gold” book in a year or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. My first reaction was to put this into the same category as "Zerbe Proof" 1921 Morgans (most likely hammered, gently handled, early business strikes). If, however, the reverse die has the same markers -- not just the same types of markers -- as the 1927 specimen strikings, then the claim that this is some sort of special striking would appear to hold water.

 

Nagging questions about the auction in question include:

 

- Why aren't there good pictures?

- Why hasn't the seller gone the extra mile to show the identical crazing marks on the 1927 and 1935 coins? I'd think well-connected Buffalo expert would be able to locate photomicrographs of the 1927 specimen, if not an actual coin.

- Why eBay and not Heritage for what is purported to be an Important Coin™?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nagging questions about the auction in question include:

 

- Why aren't there good pictures?

- Why hasn't the seller gone the extra mile to show the identical crazing marks on the 1927 and 1935 coins? I'd think well-connected Buffalo expert would be able to locate photomicrographs of the 1927 specimen, if not an actual coin.

- Why eBay and not Heritage for what is purported to be an Important Coin™?

 

You forgot:

Why isn't this coin in a PCGS or NGC holder (if it's legitimate)?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually left out having it in a PCGS or NGC holder intentionally, as neither would call it anything but an MS coin without something else being proven, or at least demonstrated beyond a certain threshold of doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually left out having it in a PCGS or NGC holder intentionally, as neither would call it anything but an MS coin without something else being proven, or at least demonstrated beyond a certain threshold of doubt.

 

100% agreed. This coin must be proven....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

125-1.jpg

148-1.jpg

 

Here's my special 1935. It's special because I like it. The strike is pretty good for the date and the condition is super, it's the eye appeal and luster that kills me. I picked this one up at the ANA show in Sac...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reported 1935 "specimen" nickel is mentioned in my book The Complete Guide to Buffalo Nickels, but I've never examined it in person. The coin for sale is certainly a bold strike from fresh dies at the very least, but I can't comment on its status from just a photo.

Would you care to provide an excerpt from your book on this? Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reported 1935 "specimen" nickel is mentioned in my book The Complete Guide to Buffalo Nickels, but I've never examined it in person. The coin for sale is certainly a bold strike from fresh dies at the very least, but I can't comment on its status from just a photo.

Would you care to provide an excerpt from your book on this? Thanks.

 

What is said is there has been a 1935 & a 1919 reported but none have been graded by either NGC nor PCGS. Also provided by Tom Arch is a letter by Breen stating he has examined a 1935 Buffalo Nickel and he thinks it is a "specimen striked" coin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks....does anyone know who "Tom Arch" is, who according to the Ebay listing can be inferred an owner of the time Breen examined it and wrote the letter in 1989.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member: Seasoned Veteran

My Buffalo Nickel book is reproduced online at stella.com, though you won't find anymore about the "specimen" 1935 nickel than what has been included in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Tom Arch" - ran the holodeck on the starship Enterprise. When the crew was finished with their recreational adventures they would call "Arch" and Tom would end the program - except when he fell asleep a couple of times...... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought "Tom Arch" was also know as TomA who was the predecessor of TomB who is about due for an upgrade to TomC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am the owner of this coin and I have enjoyed your posts! One thing I am looking for is a better camera so that I can get the closeup photos to show the micro-cracking. Got this coin from Heritage Galleries in 1986.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am the owner of this coin and I have enjoyed your posts! One thing I am looking for is a better camera so that I can get the closeup photos to show the micro-cracking. Got this coin from Heritage Galleries in 1986.

Tom

 

Tom,

I for one would LOVE to see this coin!!!!!! Please do get a camera and shoot this coin, please. This would be great.....Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites