1935 Proof or Special Strike Buffalo Nickel on Ebay

[messydesk]

Better yet, send it to a professional for all the pics you need. :)

[t-arc]

Hello John (messydesk)

I will send the coin to you for photos.

thanks much!

tom

[WoodenJefferson]

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

 

What about the letter, is it typed, hand written, signed?

[Coindude]

Hello John (messydesk)

I will send the coin to you for photos.

thanks much!

tom

You chose an excellent photographer for your coin! I know you'll be happy with the results!

[coinman_23885]

 

What about the letter, is it typed, hand written, signed?

 

If the letter was handwritten and/or signed by Breen, then I wouldn't want to touch it.

[t-arc]

The letter is handwritten and signed by Walter Breen.

Tom

[ultra-crepidarian]

I would be interested in this coin at $5000 but I wouldn't buy it unless it was authenticated by a major TPG company. But if it were authenticated by a major TPG company then I couldn't afford it. I assume Tom has tried to get this authenticated and was unable to do so. If he could get this coin authenticated as a specimen - it would be worth a lot more than $5000 and E-bay certainly wouldn't be the correct venue to sell it on. So if you want to buy this coin, you have got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky … well do you punk?" (Dirty Harry, 1971) … Me, I’m not so lucky...

[MikeInFL]

Very interesting coin.

 

That's either the best business struck 1925 buffalo nickel I've ever seen (LOOK AT THE DATE!!!), or there's some merit to the contention of special circumstances behind this coin's mintage.

 

I do wonder, however, if the coin hasn't already been to the TPGs -- as it seems to me Mark's argument as to the value of this coin if it were real are quite valid -- and I don't expect t-arc to leave money on the table. My sneaking suspicion is altered surfaces/old cleaning or they didn't recognize the specimen striking as suggested by Breen, et. al..

 

Can't wait to see the pics!

 

 

[t-arc]

 

(reverse of 1935 special striking buffalo nickel)

[t-arc]

 

(obverse photo of 1935 special striking buffalo nickel)

 

 

(copy of original flip from Heritage Rare Coin Galleries)

 

(letter from Walter Breen, obtained by Tom Arch at the 1989 ANA convention in Pittsburgh

Penna. on August 12 1989 follows)

 

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

WALTER BREEN

Box 352, Berkeley, CA 94701

August 12, 1989

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

 

This certifies that I have examined the accompanying coin and that

I unhesitatingly declare it genuine and as described below.

It is a 1935 buffalo nickel described as a "specimen striking". It has

extraordinary sharpness, obviously and visible from two blows from the dies.

This extra impression has imparted not only extra design detail as on proofs but

extra sharpness on inner and outer rims, again as on proofs. Surfaces are satiny,

though unlike the 1916, 1917, 1927, or 1936 type one proofs; it is uncertain if

any special treatment was done to the surfaces as normally with proofs.

This is the first such piece I have seen.

Respectfully submitted,

(signed) WALTER BREEN

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

Coin is completely devoid of normal cartwheel mint luster, surfaces are

smooth satin finsih

Photo of Walter Breen's letter follows...............................

 

 

[t-arc]

The microcracking does not show up in these photos, so I will send the coin out to

try to get that.

tom arch

[t-arc]

One other point, the thread mentions PROOF and I have never referred to is as a

proof. This would indicate it was a mint approved product and it is not, just as the

1913 liberty head nickel is not.

tom

[WoodenJefferson]

One other point, the thread mentions PROOF and I have never referred to is as a

proof. This would indicate it was a mint approved product and it is not, just as the

1913 liberty head nickel is not.

tom

 

I think that line of thinking may have transpired from the e-bay auction quote "The coin for all intents an purposes looks like a 1936 type one satin finish proof, which I think it is." and has been transposed into this thread.

 

appreciate the additional images.