Two nickels, identical grades, very different interpretations

[Hoot]

At the portland ANA show, I spied a very nice (and undergraded) 1936-S buffalo nickel. Below, you'll find a picture of this pretty coin.

 

 

Now, for the sake of comparison, I've also included a picture of the '36-S that I have long had as part of my registry set.

 

 

These two coins exemplify many aspects what may comprise a grade in this fine series, and particularly for this date/mint issue. The first coin is attractively toned and the second coin is bright nickel-white. Both are attractive for their appearance and both possess about equal luster. No question, for this series luster subtends grade. In fact, I think that it can override strike, that is, given what I've seen the TPGs do with these coins. Don't get me wrong, strike must be adequate, but it does not have to be outstanding for a buffalo nickel to receive gem grades. In particular, the differences between an MS65 and MS66 more often than not involve the placement of tick marks on the surface, but may only reflect a modicum of luster differences. On the other hand, the most noticable difference between an MS66 and MS67 is the luster. Granted, there can be more noticeable ticks on an MS66 coin than an MS67, but luster is the king of the difference. So, discernment of luster and being able to see it with either a toned coin or a blast white coin is key to relating to the grade of gem coins in this series.

 

Strike is important for all buffalo nickels, but mostly important for the aesthetics of the individual collector. It factors into grading but with market grades (like it or not) strike is an issue-by-issue factor for the grade. Strike must be quite noticeably weak to limit the coin from gem grade. And the difference between an MS64 and an MS65 coin, or even an MS63 and MS65 coin, may have nothing to do with strike. So, strike only has vague pertinence when assigning the grade to "buffalo nickels" but may factor more or less centrally when considering the issue. For the two nickels above, the strike is good for the former and average for the latter. There are quite noticeable differences in the obverse of the coins. Look at the definition of the braids; the former coin has ample detail in the braid given away by the tell-tale major transverse incuse line of the hair knot. That left-to right line should nearly reach the right side of the braid in a fully struck coin. That's very rare for a 36-S. When there's as much definition as you see in the first coin, the rest of the braid appears "full." There are many strike differences on the obverse, but they are more subtle. As for the reverse, the primary difference in the strike of the coins can be seen in the definition of the bison's mane at the shoulder. On the top coin, you'll see better definition of the line of the mane that should extend all the way down to the top of the bison's breast bone on a perfectly struck coin. But on a 1936-S, you'll never see that kind of perfect definition and you simply have to discern what's good and what's not for the issue. Even on MS67 coins, the clarity of the shoulder mane is often better, but never perfect.

 

Clarity has to be differentiated from strike. Clarity has to do with die state, fresher dies imparting a better-defined impression of the art than latter die states. With the coins above, the former coin is what I'd call a "late-early die state." It is not as fresh as what one might see on an MS67 quality coin, but it does not have the common signs of die fatigue that the latter coin has. On the second coin, look at the back of the Indian's neck and under his chin; the granularity seen in these places is typical of a middle die state. Believe it or not, late die states get much worse. Also on the second coin, look at the area below the belly of the bison and right above its neck. The die fatigue and heavy flow lines are evident in those places, as well at around the rims, obverse and reverse, and also on the edges of the devices. Devices that should have "crisp" edges are often mushy or compromised by heavy die flow lines. Remember that die flow lines contribute to the luster of mint state coins.

 

This sort of analysis is necessary for every issue of the series in order to discern grade or grade range. The series is heavily market graded and always has been. Each issue will provide challenge to the collector. Too much attention is often paid to stuff liike the fullness of the horn or tail of the bison when other details of the coins are often more important in determining overall quality. The devil is in the details and often the difference between placing one coin or another in your collection are simply personal preferences where quality is a matter of appeal.

 

Any additional thoughts, please add.

 

Hoot

[Leothelion]

Any additional thoughts, please add.

 

Please crop paragraphs so I don't haft to move my bottom

scrolling bar to the right then left, then right, then left again,

to the right then left, then right, then left again, to the right

then left, then right, then left again, to the right then left,

then right, then left again, to the right then left, then right,

then left again, to the right then left, then right, then left

again.........well, I think you got my point.

 

Leo

[TomB]

Hoot, I like this post very much. I even rated it five stars, and giving ratings to threads is something I almost never do. Your analysis illustrates perfectly the fine points that a true numismatist comes to learn vs what a casual collector might know. I don't have much to add germane to the nickels at hand, however, there will be some tangential ideas brought up.

 

The point about luster is a good one as there seems to be a line in other series where the luster must be superior for the coin to vault to a certain grade. For silver Washington quarters this line is the MS67/MS68 breakpoint where coins with average or even poor luster can be found in MS67 holders while only high luster pieces join the ranks of MS68. In the Washington series, there has been a redefining of what it means to be an MS66, MS67 and MS68 coin in the last two years with the MS68 ranks swelling in number. This, and the five-figure price, causes me to shy away from these coins. Have you noticed a similar redefinition within the Buffalo series? Off-hand, I would think not since Buffs have been avidly collected for two generations whereas Washington quarters really only took off in popularity beginning with the State Quarter series. Therefore, the grading services (read; the individual graders) really never had to define a high end Washington until only recently. Additionally, the collecting public didn't care about such coins until not long ago.

 

Two other specific issues where I have seen severe die erosion are the 1913 Type I Buffs and the 1909-S VDB Lincoln cent. Of course, some Merc issues also suffer from severe erosion and many CBHs have tremendous flow lines. Of concern to me within the Buffalo series is the presence of a whitish appearance on many Buffalos in areas that I would think are not struck well. This almost gives an appearance that there is zinc in those areas so I'll call this zinc toning. Is the zinc toning the product of insufficient striking pressure and/or die erosion such that the surface metal not only does not fill the die, but might not achieve a certain required fluidity during the striking process? So, are we looking at metal that has not been fatigued, annealed or stressed as desired where we see zinc toning?

[Hoot]

Any additional thoughts, please add.

 

Please crop paragraphs so I don't haft to move my bottom

scrolling bar to the right then left, then right, then left again,

to the right then left, then right, then left again, to the right

then left, then right, then left again, to the right then left,

then right, then left again, to the right then left, then right,

then left again, to the right then left, then right, then left

again.........well, I think you got my point.

 

Leo

 

How about you increase your screen resolution to 1024x1168 ?!

 

Hoot

[DonHeath]

Hoot,

 

I liked the post very much. David Lange said something that parallels your point regarding commercial grading of specific date/mm within a series. To poorly paraphrase, "to know how your 36-S should grade, you have to know what a superb 36-S looks like". That requires very careful examination of very high grade examples. More to TomB's point, the standard for many modern series is certainly a work in progress, and I believe greatly influenced by submissions. JMO I can imagine every once in awhile a coin comes along that redefines a grade.

 

I loved your thought regarding collectors seeking qualities that are most important to them. Although I'm sure based on your description and picture the coin you replaced is quite credible for the grade, I love your replacement. Personally, I'm not a fan of abraded die coins, and will forgive a few marks for an early die coin. Crispness and luster sure seem to make a coin "pop". Great coin! Looks like you didn't have to forgive anything.

[Hoot]

Tom and Don - Thanks to you both for some great comments.

 

Have you noticed a similar redefinition within the Buffalo series?

 

You are correct that there has not been such redefinition in the buffalo nickel series. And you're right on in assessing that it's a matter that the series has garnered such huge interest over time with no recent popularity that would have brought a plethora of pieces out of the woodwork.

 

Is the zinc toning the product of insufficient striking pressure and/or die erosion such that the surface metal not only does not fill the die, but might not achieve a certain required fluidity during the striking process? So, are we looking at metal that has not been fatigued, annealed or stressed as desired where we see zinc toning?

 

This is a great question. I don't know the answer definitively, but here's what I think. Nickel is a very hard metal. In order to make great nickels, the Mint must properly anneal the coins, which can be a lengthy process. (Slow heating and roasting at about 1600 degrees F.) I think that there were times when either the person in charge of this process blew it in terms of heat or time required or both. (Too little heat, the metal is hard, too little time, the metal is hard. Also, if you get the metal too hot for too short of time, then it is brittle. Probably lots of ways to blow it.) Concurrently, dies had to be properly heated and cooled in their manufacture to impart a proper impression. So, if the combination of dies and planchets was not ideal, then the coins would not strike properly. Dies would fatigue quickly and coins would look bad quickly, even with a new die. Add to this the fact that the planchets were washed in sort of an Ivory soap mixture (pure soap, not detergent) which could easily leave a residue on the coin surfaces. So, in areas on the coins that were poorly struck or required heavy metal flow, a residue of soap was impressed, thus leaving a white film. Badly prepared planchets, dies, or both increased this likelihood. We witness this even today with what we call "water spots." These are impressed into the metal and are very hard to remove.

 

...the standard for many modern series is certainly a work in progress, and I believe greatly influenced by submissions. JMO I can imagine every once in awhile a coin comes along that redefines a grade.

 

This is absolutely the case. I think that the ideas of (1) a coin "redefining" the grade for a series and (2) series grading being works in progress are more important to so-called "shifting standards" than we realize. Excellent points.

 

Thanks Don for the comments about the pieces! And thanks Tom for the stars!

 

Hoot

[Leothelion]

Any additional thoughts, please add.

 

Please crop paragraphs so I don't haft to move my bottom

scrolling bar to the right then left, then right, then left again,

to the right then left, then right, then left again, to the right

then left, then right, then left again, to the right then left,

then right, then left again, to the right then left, then right,

then left again, to the right then left, then right, then left

again.........well, I think you got my point.

 

Leo

 

How about you increase your screen resolution to 1024x1168 ?!

 

Hoot

 

That would be great! All I would need to do is update my monitor out of the 20th century!

 

Leo

 

Make note to ignore all Hoot's posts until then!

[chinook]

These threads are great. Thank you, guys.

[jom]

Correct me if/when I'm wrong but didn't the 2nd coin come from a weak die? WIth that "orange peel" look in the fields it would seem the die was probably a bit worn out. Occationally I've seen better strikes on the higher points come from worn dies. Why this is I don't really know.

 

As to luster: I agree with the notion of the luster being the difference at the 66/67 level. The problem is that you so very rarely see a true 67-quality Buffalo that it is hard to compare. In late 2002 (I think) there was a B&M Rarites Sale in So. Cal. that had a number of 67 Buffs in it. It was great to actually see a few of these (other than 38-Ds that is) so you can get an idea of what to look for.

 

As to the strike: I've noticed more recently that the TPG's have gotten a bit lax when it comes to strike. It used to be they wouldn't go 65 on coins with certain lack of detail but lately I've noticed a change (probably the past 4 years or so). Now you can find MS65 coins with significant lack of detail in the braid.

 

As to hits on the coin: I'm the kind of person who has a tendency to ignore hits, especially on Buffs. I don't know why that is. I suppose it is because I haven't collected Morgans where that seems to be a primary concern. Since the Buff is a small coin AND is made of a hard metal hits usually aren't a problem...with me anyway.

 

It really comes down to each individuals idea of what is a "quality" coin. After all, "grade" is not necessarily the same as "quality". Even then there doesn't seem to be any absolutes when it comes to grading coins...try as we might.

 

jom

[Hoot]

Correct me if/when I'm wrong but didn't the 2nd coin come from a weak die? WIth that "orange peel" look in the fields it would seem the die was probably a bit worn out.

 

You're right about this, and I clarified my first post a bit so that you could see that I was, indeed, talking about the second coin as coming from a fatigued die. Thanks jom.

 

Hoot

[solid]

Great thread, Hoot!

 

Nice nickels with a good explanation of the differences between them!

 

I really have nothing to add except I learned how to rate threads now and gave this one a 5 also!

 

Ken

[Wihlborg]

Hoot,

 

I could not agree more with the point you made about luster being the MAIN difference between a buffalo grading MS-66 or MS-67. I have seen some MS-67 buff’s that strike or mark wise were not much better than an MS-66 coin, but EVERY MS-67 buff I have ever seen has had luster that was far superior to what is the norm for a MS-66 graded coin.

 

This is not to say that an MS-66 coin could not have luster equal to what is typically found on an MS-67 coin, as there is no doubt that there are MS-66 buff’s with such luster, BUT these coins will have some other aspect which limits their grade (strike or marks). These coins would probably be in MS-67 holders if their strike was a little better or if they had one less mark, or less noticeable marks.

 

I also like your point about die state vs. strike. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard someone mistake die erosion for a weak strike in this series, the thought being the coin was not struck hard enough for the metal to fill the die.

 

Excellent post, I wish I had seen it sooner!

 

BTW, are you hopeing for a 67 on that new '36s?

 

John

[Hoot]

BTW, are you hopeing for a 67 on that new '36s?

 

John

 

Thanks for having a look John! Coming from a man who truly KNOWS his buffalo nicks, your comments are greatly appreciated.

 

As for the coins posted, they are both MS66 quality coins. The former does not have the luster to make the 67 grade (although quite good) and that hit on the bison's shoulder is grade-limiting. I missed an MS67 that was up in the last Heritage auction that would have been a very nice addition to my collection. ~Sigh~ another time!

 

Hoot

[Wihlborg]

Hoot

 

Yeah, I noticed that hit on the buffalo’s lower shoulder, but I thought that being the photo was so large, maybe in person the hit was not large enough to keep the coin from grading MS-67 if the luster was of 67 quality. Regardless, it looks like a very nice coin.

 

Congrats on another great find!

 

John

[Trime-migration]

Hoot,

Great post and extremely instructive. The comments about clarity were especially interesting. While not a collector of BuffNics; the points made for this difficult to grade series apply to others. It is my experience that the best way to learn about the grading process is to take a series and cover the grades and then line them up in order of your assigned grade ( obv and rev). Then if you are fortunate to have duplicate dates and mm judge within a d/mm. One could also perform this excercise using separately the categories you have laid out in addition to the compilation grade. If you have enough coins in a series available perform the excercise periodically to test for consistency. Consistency is probably the most important factor to me as you can shift the grade scale to the left or right if you predictably deviate from the grades of the service.

BTW, many excellent graders can not explain clearly and precisely why they have assigned a grade to a coin; you on the other hand strive to take the mystery from the process.

[MikeKing]

Truly an excellent post with lots to learn from, thank you.

[Beijim]

Hoot,

 

This is an outstanding post. Thank you.

 

Beijim

[Oldtrader3]

Excellent post. Thanks to all, especially Hoot.

[Hoot]

Thanks all! This was a blast, and perhaps we can get together on another great coin soon.

 

Hoot