2-1913 Type 2 Buffalo Nickel's. Which one is the one? Help me out....

[Buffalo Head]

Here I have two 1913 type 2 Buffs. One of which is graded by PCGS as an MS-?. The other is one I picked up raw. Just curious on which ya think is better. Of course it's easier to image the raw coin because I don't have the plastic in the way but at the same time I think the images represent the coins very well. All said, help me out, which one do you think will receive the higher grade? Or do ya think they are equal? Thnk you for your time and help....Joe

I'm going to thin down my herd a bit....

 

 

I double dog dare anyone to grade the pcgs coin...DOUBLE DOG!!

[Chris1976]

They both look about the same to me, but if I had to lean towards one or the other, I would think the Raw coin looked better to me. Seems to have less minor contact marks

 

-Chris#2

[e1cnr]

I like the top

 

 

and would give it my split tail designation for strong strike

[$ilverHawk]

The raw coin has more color character and an equal strike compared to the graded Buff.

 

Carl

[robec1347]

I agree, the raw coin has fewer contact marks and looks to be a little better struck. The shoulder looks cleaner, but could be because of the lighting. I'll take 'em both!!

[jom]

The one on the bottom, depending on luster you can't see in photo, is a 63 at best. Top is a 64. Based on the photos....of course.

 

That aside, I like the top one much better. Better strike and more importantly NO SPOTS...at least I can't see any. The bottom one is rife with them...especially the obverse.

 

jom

[noow]

The top one

[physics-fan3.14]

Without a doubt, the top one is better grade. Less marks, better luster, better eye appeal, better strike.... I can't see a single area where the bottom one is better.

[SkyMan]

Top.

[mtnstyne]

I like the top one as well, seems like better strike, less contact and I like the toning better.

[Buffalo Head]

Without a doubt, the top one is better grade. Less marks, better luster, better eye appeal, better strike.... I can't see a single area where the bottom one is better.

 

What would ya suppose the pcgs coin is graded? WARNING, this could be a trap....

[robec1347]

I just know now that PCGS probably graded it a 66.

[Buffalo Head]

I just know now that PCGS probably graded it a 66.

 

[Walkerfan]

Assuming there are no surface issues, I would pick the raw one. But they are oh so close!

[Buffalo Head]

I just know now that PCGS probably graded it a 66.

 

 

Come on Bob, grade it....

[Buffalo Head]

Assuming there are no surface issues, I would pick the raw one. But they are oh so close!

 

You to my friend, grade the pcgs coin for me. WARNING!!! WARNING!! I DOUBLE DOG DARE YA....

[bsshog40]

Really hard for me. I like them both very much. I see a little less hair detail around the horn on the raw coin than pcgs one, then I see a little more detail in the feathers on the raw coin than the pcgs one. So I'm left with going for what appeals to my eye. The raw one is more appealing to me.

[Buffalo Head]

Really hard for me. I like them both very much. I see a little less hair detail around the horn on the raw coin than pcgs one, then I see a little more detail in the feathers on the raw coin than the pcgs one. So I'm left with going for what appeals to my eye. The raw one is more appealing to me.

 

Bobby, I dare ya to grade the pcgs coin. Double dog!... come on lets have some real fun....Joe

[bsshog40]

Really hard for me. I like them both very much. I see a little less hair detail around the horn on the raw coin than pcgs one, then I see a little more detail in the feathers on the raw coin than the pcgs one. So I'm left with going for what appeals to my eye. The raw one is more appealing to me.

 

Bobby, I dare ya to grade the pcgs coin. Double dog!... come on lets have some real fun....Joe

I'm not real good with Buffalos Joe but my guess would be MS65.

[robec1347]

I'll say PCGS gave it a 64.

[Buffalo Head]

I'll say PCGS gave it a 64.

 

You wanna try again or are ya gonna stick with that one? Hmmmmm.....

[Walkerfan]

Looks like a little bit of rub on the hair. So, I'll go out on a limb and say PCGS AU 58

[jom]

I'll reiterate: MS63

 

I won't go 58 because the first sign of wear is on the Buff's hip...and I don't see that.

 

jom

[Buffalo Head]

I'll reiterate: MS63

 

I won't go 58 because the first sign of wear is on the Buff's hip...and I don't see that.

 

jom

 

Are you sure? Come on now, 63? I'll give ya another shot just because. It's not a 63 I'll go that far. And it's not a 58 either....

[jom]

I'll reiterate: MS63

 

I won't go 58 because the first sign of wear is on the Buff's hip...and I don't see that.

 

jom

 

Are you sure? Come on now, 63? I'll give ya another shot just because. It's not a 63 I'll go that far. And it's not a 58 either....

 

We are talking about the 2nd coin down, right? BASED ON THE PHOTO the coin is fugly. MS63 at best.

 

Since I haven't seen the coin in hand it could be anything. I can see the spots and the weak strike. Luster? Who knows? Color? Who knows?

 

You've suggested it isn't 65 and you've said it isn't 63 or 58. So 64? If they went lower than 63 I could understand as I don't find the coin attractive. If they went 66 then it seems PCGS has once again hired Stevie Wonder as a grader.

 

jom

[Buffalo Head]

I'll reiterate: MS63

 

I won't go 58 because the first sign of wear is on the Buff's hip...and I don't see that.

 

jom

 

Are you sure? Come on now, 63? I'll give ya another shot just because. It's not a 63 I'll go that far. And it's not a 58 either....

 

We are talking about the 2nd coin down, right? BASED ON THE PHOTO the coin is fugly. MS63 at best.

 

Since I haven't seen the coin in hand it could be anything. I can see the spots and the weak strike. Luster? Who knows? Color? Who knows?

 

You've suggested it isn't 65 and you've said it isn't 63 or 58. So 64? If they went lower than 63 I could understand as I don't find the coin attractive. If they went 66 then it seems PCGS has once again hired Stevie Wonder as a grader.

 

jom

 

Why, that's outlandish! I mean about Stevie Wonder and all. And that I suggested all of these things you mention here just aren't true!

[robec1347]

If I were a Photograder I wouldn't go higher than 64.

 

Based on images of Buffalos graded 58 through 63, yours just has more detail and less rub.

 

It is possible because this being the first year that generic grades don't apply.

 

Maybe it's the rare MS61. I don't believe it should be lower than that nor higher than a 64.

[Buffalo Head]

If I were a Photograder I wouldn't go higher than 64.

 

Based on images of Buffalos graded 58 through 63, yours just has more detail and less rub.

 

It is possible because this being the first year that generic grades don't apply.

 

Maybe it's the rare MS61. I don't believe it should be lower than that nor higher than a 64.

 

 

I put more light.....If it matters.

[physics-fan3.14]

Joe, more light and good pictures doesn't make the coin itself any prettier. I hate to tell you, but that's an ugly nickel by your standards. I myself wouldn't grade it any higher than 63, I don't care what number is on the plastic (although I wouldn't be surprised with a 64). The other coin you show is a 65, any day (but its not quite up to your usual level). , if I had your collection of Buffalo's, I'd pass on both of them.

[jom]

Joe, more light and good pictures doesn't make the coin itself any prettier. I hate to tell you, but that's an ugly nickel by your standards. I myself wouldn't grade it any higher than 63, I don't care what number is on the plastic (although I wouldn't be surprised with a 64). The other coin you show is a 65, any day (but its not quite up to your usual level). , if I had your collection of Buffalo's, I'd pass on both of them.

 

^ This

 

jom