Some notes on proof buffalo nickels...

[Hoot]

The buffalo nickel proof series is a rather short set, composed of only eight coins from the years 1913 (two distinct subtypes) through 1916, and 1936 (two distinct finishes) through 1937. Buffalo nickels and Lincoln cents were manufactured from 1913-16 with matte proof finishes, yet they were often spent contemptuously (or perhaps accidentally so) since their finish was dull and the pieces were not readily distinguished from common circulation pieces of the time, except by a small, educated public. Rejection of these early proofs was indeed so great, that proof coin manufacture ceased from 1917 through 1935, a period in which time witnessed the rise and cessation of the standing Liberty quarter, of which only one proof was made in 1916 (see TomB's initial post below - very interesting).

 

There were at least three types of proof coins that were manufactured from 1907 to 1937. This 30 year span included matte proofs, satin proofs (also called Roman finish proofs), and brilliant proofs. Each type of proof coinage represented differences in technique of proof coin manufacture, but I won’t go into that here.

 

I’m fascinated with the proof nickels of 1913-16, as well as the satin proof 1936 nickel. In the years 1913-16, the so-called “matte finish” buffalo nickels made an interesting transformation from a coarse matte appearance to a fine satiny appearance. The latter were (and are) qualitatively different from the 1936 satin proofs, however, which had much more luster to their finely textured surfaces. However, the 1916 proofs, in particular, were a much more refined coin than the 1913 proof nickels.

 

Proof buffalo nickels proved to be rather unpopular from 1913-16. Indeed, looking at the mintages is an indication of waning collector interest, if not downright disapproval of the coins. Here’s the breakdown:

 

1913 Type 1: 1,520

1913 Type 2: 1,514

1914: 1,275

1915: 1,050

1916: 600

 

And the survival rate of these coins is likely somewhere around 70-80 percent. The rarity of proof buffalo nickels can be assessed not only by production and survival, but also on condition. The vast majority of proof buffalos from 1913-16 are found in grades of proof 65 and less. Many of these coins were treated improperly and show damage to the fine pebbling on their surfaces. This shows up as shiny or smooth spots in the finish. Scratches can also be pervasive on these coins. For the most part, these proof pieces were treated really poorly. Thus, pieces that can be assessed as PR66 and higher are fairly rare, and comprise less than 10 percent of the total population. Similar claims might be made for the satin pieces of 1936, but those pieces, for the most part, were received more eagerly by the public than their former cousins. Around 2,200 satin pieces were made in 1936, and most survive in conditions of PF66 and below. Pieces that grade PF67 and above are of the same form of conditional rarity as the PF66 (and above) pieces of 1913-16.

 

For aficionados of the proof buffalo nickel series, matte proofs are delicacies to be relished for their subtleties of beauty! Every nuance of the design elements are typically struck to the fullest extent, with special definition to high points of the design, including the hair knot of the Indian and the mane over the shoulder of the bison. Lettering on all proof pieces is fully square, rims are broad and well-defined, and on coins of 1913-15, and especially on Type 1 pieces of 1913 (buffalo on mound), the fields show every discontinuity of roughness.

 

Coins purchased from the Mint in the years 1913-16 came wrapped in tissue paper that had a high sulfur content. Coins kept in that tissue often developed heavy and unattractive toning and many of those proofs were dipped and subsequently mishandled. Likewise, proofs of 1936-37 were most often removed from their cellophane wrappers and appeared hazy. It’s the rare piece that survived well in totally original condition.

 

On that note, here are two pieces of mine (my only two). One I’ve shown you before (the 1913) but it provides an excellent contrast with the 1916. The scuffy appearing lines in the scan of the 1916 are on the holder – I really need to get this coin re-holdered. Enjoy. Mark.

 

[goose3]

excellent stuff and great buffs too Hoot!

 

what would a nice complete set of these run in PF65?

[Wihlborg]

Great post Mark!

 

It’s loaded with info that would be of interest to anyone who is serious about buffalo nickels. As for the coins, well I don't have to tell you what I think about them!

 

John

[BankNote1]

Great post. Two sweet Buffs!

[TomB]

Superb thread, Hoot.

 

You know, no matter how much I try to lower the standards of this forum, you keep raising the signal-to-noise ratio! By the way, there is a single proof SLQ known, it is dated 1916, is a matte proof and was sold as lot #48 in the Stack's Fiftieth Anniversary Sale in 1985 for just under $21k. Of note, the coin was intentionally damaged by the then-US Mint Director, who scratched out two leaves that obscured the L in LIBERTY as he thought the coin looked better without them.

[Hoot]

You know, no matter how much I try to lower the standards of this forum, you keep raising the signal-to-noise ratio!

 

Nobody here posts more salient info on coins than thee. (And I can't wait to get my hands on the Barber halves I had set aside at the local coin shop, just so I can make a post with info gleaned from you-know-who! )

 

By the way, there is a single proof SLQ known, it is dated 1916, is a matte proof and was sold as lot #48 in the Stack's Fiftieth Anniversary Sale in 1985 for just under $21k. Of note, the coin was intentionally damaged by the then-US Mint Director, who scratched out two leaves that obscured the L in LIBERTY as he thought the coin looked better without them.

 

That is utterly fascinating! What a nut-job the Director must have been! Now, there were two directors in 1916, so was it Woolley (through July 1916) or von Engelken (from September 1916)?

 

I'd love to see that piece!

 

Hoot

[TomB]

It was von Engelken.

[Hoot]

Thanks Tom! I edited my initial post accordingly. I don't know what the hell I was thinking, as Barber dimes, quarters, and halves were made through 1915, but with brilliant surfaces. So, I hope I have it straight now.

 

Hoot

[Leothelion]

Very nice Hoot! I'll probably never own one of those.......maybe!

 

Leo

[Dry]

Anyone have a pic of a 1936 satin proof?

[jom]

Nice Hoot.

 

Is there any info on the possible 1917 dated proof or the indetermined 1927 specimen peice? I'd have to get out my Lange book but I'm too lazy...as usual. Also, does anyone know what happened to the copper pieces that supposedly went with the 5 1913 Liberty heads. At one time there were some strike examples in copper that went with that famous set.

 

BTW, your pieces are nice but they could use some "touch-up".

 

jom

[Hoot]

From what i understand, there has never been a 1917 piece actually attributed by the grading services as a proof. There is claim that they are and Breen was convinced of it, but subsequent attributers, who were more expert than Breen with Buffs, remained unconvinced. I believee that there were less than 5 of those (perhaps even one or two?) that surfaced. They may simply have been very early die state business strikes that had great detail. Who knows?

 

Lange presents the best argument for the existence of specimen pieces of 1927. Basically, the Mint produced pure nickel coins for Ecuador in 1928. They had chrome-plated the dies for this coinage in order to extend die life with the very hard pure metal. It seems likely that they would have experimented with the process before implementing it in '28, so it stands to reason that they may have struck a few buffalo nickels from chrome-plated dies as a test case. Additionally, there was microscopic evidence for the 1927 specimen pieces having been struck by such dies that was presented at a 1990 ANA show in Seattle, I believe. Mark van Winkle (sp?) demonstrated that the 1927 pieces showed micro-fissuring that is commonly found on proof nickels (and Cu-Ni clad coinage) struck with chrome-plated dies from 1972-on. Apparently, these fissures are microscopic and form a reticulated pattern that is particularly evident toward the edge of the coin.

 

Lange seemed convinced that the coins should bear the attribution of "specimen" as they are unique. What appears to remain unclear is whether the 1928 pieces were struck twice.

 

Lange also mentions unusual specimens of unique pieces from 1919 and 1935, although he had not seen them when he wrote his book. Breen was convinced of the uniqueness of the 1935 piece, but does not provide a good description.

 

Insofar as the copper buffs go, I know nothing. If I ever did, I've forgotten it. I saw a 1916 dated copper buffalo five cent piece for sale at one time on eBay for 5 grand. If I'd have seen it in person, and had the opportunity to have it authenticated, I may have bought it. Alas, that one slipped by without any heartache.

 

BTW, your pieces are nice but they could use some "touch-up".

 

I'll bring them to the SF ANA and let you do a little "work."

 

Hoot

[Hoot]

Anyone have a pic of a 1936 satin proof?

 

Prettiest one I've ever seen: on Teletrade.

 

Wish I owned it.

 

Hoot

[jom]

Anyone have a pic of a 1936 satin proof?

 

Prettiest one I've ever seen:

 

I don't think he sold it in his recent auction but I saw Bruce Scher's 36 Satin and it beats the hell out of that one on Teletrade. And NOT because it was graded 68...but because of the color. An incredible piece...

 

jom

[Hoot]

There are definitely some wildly toned satin '36 proofs out there. I have seen some that were target-toned (nearly won one in auction from Stacks a few years ago), but I simply liked the lustrous and mildly toned, yet orignial surfaces of the one on Teletrade better. Makes the world go around, I suppose. Sure hope to find a nice, original satin proof some day in the 66-67 grade range. I would never afford a 68. Finding '36 and '37 satin and brilliant proofs with original toning and without carbon spots is tough.

 

Hoot

[jom]

Yeah, well, I'm pretty biased when it comes to toned pieces. I just remember not being able to pull my eyes from Bruce's coin. But the $15K price tag kept me from inquiring further.

 

jom

[TomB]

The most beautiful 1936 satin proof Buffalo I have ever seen is owned by a friend of mine and it has gorgeous concentric washes of red and green alternating from the rims through to the center on both sides! The coin is a monster and has been bagged by both PCGS and NGC several times each because of a Mint made planchet flaw!

 

Yes, there is a fairly large planchet flaw in the hair of the Native American and the flaw is retained and hanging on the coin. Neither service will slab the coin as is.

[Hoot]

what would a nice complete set of these run in PF65?

 

Here are some approximate numbers goose:

 

1913 T1: $2700-3000

1913 T2: $1700-2000

1914: $1600-1900

1915: $1400-1700

1916: $3000-3500

1936 satin: $1400-1700

1936 brilliant: $1800-2100

1937: $1300-1500

 

The values of most of these are fairly odd to me. The 1913 T2 is greatly undervalued, as is the 1914 & (more so) 1915. (Finding these pieces pretty is very difficult.) The 1936 brilliant is overvalued. Demand for the 1913 T1 is always high due to type collecting.

 

Hoot

[Oldtrader3]

Great information and articles Hoot and all. I really enjoyed reading all this information and history.

[chinook]

Great thread!! as usual Mark.

 

I bought a raw 1937 brilliant with a collection a few years ago. It was the first proof Buffalo I had seen and it was stunning. Came back from PCGS as PF65. I had planned to keep it a part of my permanent collection, but in a fit of insanity I sold it to pay for a snowmobile.

[Dry]

Anyone have a pic of a 1936 satin proof?

 

Prettiest one I've ever seen: on Teletrade.

 

Wish I owned it.

 

Hoot

 

Thanks! Stunning coin!

[Beijim]

Wonderful educational post, Hoot - thank you. And thanks also to TomB and everyone else who have added excellent info and commentary - you guys are great. I've enjoyed the proof Buffalo series from afar with little knowledge and no collecting. This thread may be just the impetus to begin the series!

 

Beijim

[Hoot]

This thread may be just the impetus to begin the series!

 

***With arms flailing like the robot on Lost in space***

 

Danger, DANGER!!!

 

Take her slow and easy, Beijim! And thanks for the comments.

 

Hoot

[EZ_E]

Hey Hoot, I just now got around to reading this thread. Outstanding!

 

One can certainly admire the detail on this incredible design by

James Earl Fraser! A couple of months ago, Pinnacle Rarities

offered a stunning PR 68 Buffalo with the most awesome blue

toning than one can imagine. I think that it was 1937/38.

However, it's sticker price was $8K.

 

I think that the reason that I avoid collecting Buff's is

because they are in such high demand which, of course, pushes

the price upwards. One can notice the demand by the proof

prices which you quoted.

 

I believe that this is partially why I am drawn to 19th century

proof types, i.e. they have as low or lower mintages as the

Indian Head nickel but at much more reasonable prices.

I doubt that this will last for long, though, with the

increasing collector base. I really believe that the coin market

will not slow down unless there is a major economic downturn

in the US. The internet provides the impedus for this market

and will most probably continue picking up momentum.

 

p.s. Mark, you are a very good writer. Ever consider writing

an article for Coin World?

[Beijim]

***With arms flailing like the robot on Lost in space***

 

Danger, DANGER!!!

 

Take her slow and easy, Beijim! And thanks for the comments.

 

Hoot

 

Heh heh, love Lost In Space . No worries - I'm fairly deliberate and tenacious when it comes to collecting. Your advice falls on open ears.

 

Beijim

[cpm9ball]

"Ever consider writing an article for Coin World?"

 

Nah, they don't pay enough! I was reading CW's "write-ins" once, and from the style of writing in one I would have thought it was Hoot. You don't use any aliases, do you?

 

Excellent, Hoot!

 

"I'd get on my knees and worship thee,

but I'm afraid EZ's puppy would sit on me!"

 

Chris

[michael]

 

great thread fantastic posts and another kudos for hoot

[EZ_E]

"Ever consider writing an article for Coin World?"

 

Nah, they don't pay enough! I was reading CW's "write-ins" once, and from the style of writing in one I would have thought it was Hoot. You don't use any aliases, do you?

 

Excellent, Hoot!

 

"I'd get on my knees and worship thee,

but I'm afraid EZ's puppy would sit on me!"

 

Chris

 

caleb is but a little-bitty pup

who's specialty is to dine and sup

Ne'er concerned 'bout world affairs

Sleepin' and eating are his cares

Take no mind of this St. Bernard

'cause he's but a big tub of lard

[Hoot]

"Ever consider writing an article for Coin World?"

 

Nah, they don't pay enough! I was reading CW's "write-ins" once, and from the style of writing in one I would have thought it was Hoot. You don't use any aliases, do you?

 

Excellent, Hoot!

 

"I'd get on my knees and worship thee,

but I'm afraid EZ's puppy would sit on me!"

 

Chris

 

caleb is but a little-bitty pup

who's specialty is to dine and sup

Ne'er concerned 'bout world affairs

Sleepin' and eating are his cares

Take no mind of this St. Bernard

'cause he's but a big tub of lard

 

The Dog Poets Society?

 

I love it!

 

Hoot

[Hoot]

As luck and time would provide, I eventually picked up one of my favorite buffalo nickels, a 1936 satin proof. Please see my initial post for comments on this piece.

 

Over the due course of time, I've found that the vast majority of well preserved satin proofs are simply ugly. These coins were dipped to death in what I believe to be a vain attempt at making them look decent. Unfortunately, dipping does not remove carbon spots and the resulting disappointment led to subsequent ugly toning and more dipping. Eventually, many of the satin proofs lost their luster and any semblance of originality. Therefore, the task of finding an excellent piece has been tough, and I've looked at many over the course of years.

 

At last, I recently found a satin proof that simply beams luster, has no surface impairments, and is superbly toned. I have looked at so many of these coins that this one LEAPED out at me as being of vast superiority. My scan does the color justice but does not portray the extraordinary luster.

 

As mentioned in my initial post, the surface of the satin proof is quite fine. There is not record of how these coins were manufactured, yet it seems clear that they were not manufactured by sandblast methods, which was employed for the earlier 20th Century proofs. My personal conjecture is that these were manufactured with pickled dies that imparted the etchings of acid as a fine surface texture on the coin. Lovely. Although these coins appear to have been more welcome than the early buffalo proofs (1913-16), they were still not fashionable among collectors since they had some resemblance to business strikes, and were readily spent as such.

 

Far fewer satin proofs likely survive today than brilliant proofs, which were manufactured later in 1936 and for the entire 1937 run. Still, these coins are less expensive than the brilliant proofs. I can't figure it out, except to say that most are ... ugly. Here's a scan of mine: enjoy. Hoot