Prooflike (PL) Buffalo Nickel 0

[coinman_23885]

I know several other members here have an interest in prooflike coins, so I thought I would share an image of my newly designated PL buffalo nickel.   There is one other PL buffalo nickel listed in the NGC census for the series, a single 1936, but it has never appeared at auction as best I can tell.  I have been unable to locate any images, and before this, I had always wondered what one would look like.  

 

 

Edited December 1, 2017 by coinman_23885

[david3142]

That is way cool!  How did you acquire it?  Was it sold to you raw?

[coinman_23885]

20 minutes ago, david3142 said:

That is way cool!  How did you acquire it?  Was it sold to you raw?

When I found this, it was in a NGC MS63* holder.   Because it looked fully PL, I submitted it under the designation review tier.  

[WoodenJefferson]

10 hours ago, coinman_23885 said:

When I found this, it was in a NGC MS63* holder.   Because it looked fully PL, I submitted it under the designation review tier.  

That gamble paid off, good eye! 

Stunning Buffalo. 

[cladking]

Wow!!!

 

Beautiful coin!

[physics-fan3.14]

That is a truly remarkable coin! 

[coinman_23885]

Thanks everyone!

[numisport]

Proof dies probably put out of service. This would be a true PL business strike right ?

[PocketArt]

Beautiful PL coinman_23885!  I was curious to what these looked like- congratulations, and thanks for sharing.

[physics-fan3.14]

1 hour ago, numisport said:

Proof dies probably put out of service. This would be a true PL business strike right ?

These aren't proof dies because this is a Denver mint product. They didn't make proofs in Denver. 

[numisport]

Some 49-S Franklins were even cameo prooflike and couldn't have been proof dies because there were none until 1950. I missed the D mintmark on the Buffalo at first and understand that leftover proof dies were over used anyway.

[bsshog40]

Awesome looking Buffalo!!

[RWB]

Very unusual! Good 'eye.'

[Greg Allen]

Interesting on the timing.  I recently submitted a raw '37-D for grading because it was a PL.  It too received the PL designation. 

[physics-fan3.14]

9 minutes ago, Greg Allen said:

Interesting on the timing.  I recently submitted a raw '37-D for grading because it was a PL.  It too received the PL designation. 

Fascinating! Can you show us pictures? 

[Greg Allen]

On 12/2/2017 at 3:18 PM, numisport said:

Some 49-S Franklins were even cameo prooflike and couldn't have been proof dies because there were none until 1950. I missed the D mintmark on the Buffalo at first and understand that leftover proof dies were over used anyway.

I've seen 3 MS Franklin dates/mm with PL surfaces: '49-S (the most common from a relative standpoint as none of these are common), '54-S, and'59. I recently made a '49-S in PL.

[Greg Allen]

3 minutes ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

Fascinating! Can you show us pictures? 

I won't have it in hand until FUN.  It was graded AU58PL.

 

[coinman_23885]

2 hours ago, Greg Allen said:

Interesting on the timing.  I recently submitted a raw '37-D for grading because it was a PL.  It too received the PL designation. 

Very cool!  I would love to see pictures when you get it in hand.  It is always interesting to see what else is out there/available.

[e1cnr]

I had a 1936 nickel in an ACG MS65 holder that has very prooflike - I should have kept it

[mumu]

Wow just seeing this coin. Great score. Any pics ever get posted of that au58pl? thats a weird score too in 58.

[mumu]

I just picked up this coin. It was listed as PL though I dont think it has the mirrors for PL. Nothing like what it appears the coin here has. But it certainly looks different than your typical MS coins. This one also has an insane strike.

 

Edited April 21, 2018 by mumu

[rrantique]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2018 by rrantique
delete

[numisport]

At a glance the surfaces resemble a '36 Satin Proof I recently acquired

[mumu]

RRantique yours are slabbed PL? Are they in the census?

[RWB]

First illustrated coin is interesting and might actually a PL.

[PS: It's a "population" not a "census."]

[JIM F.]

These all look great. My guess is that grading fees eat up much of the value of anything graded ms66 or less and there may be a lot of late date raw prooflikes out there. 

[rrantique]

5 hours ago, mumu said:

RRantique yours are slabbed PL? Are they in the census?

They are not slabbed PL. 

[numisport]

Somehow I'm missing the train that will carry us to a new way of thinking, and probably on purpose. A prooflike coin as implied is one that looks like a proof. I understand that grading companies are always looking for new revenues and don't blame them but I just don't see proof-like mirrors in Buffalo nickels. Unless of course you compare them to satin proof Buffalos, I just don't see it...... that is [reflective fields].

[mumu]

1 hour ago, numisport said:

Somehow I'm missing the train that will carry us to a new way of thinking, and probably on purpose. A prooflike coin as implied is one that looks like a proof. I understand that grading companies are always looking for new revenues and don't blame them but I just don't see proof-like mirrors in Buffalo nickels. Unless of course you compare them to satin proof Buffalos, I just don't see it...... that is [reflective fields].

I tried this argument before. The people only care about mirrors. There is no proof like when it comes to satin proofs. I have accepted it as the market speaks. I understand the need for a technical definition.

Edited April 22, 2018 by mumu

[JIM F.]

Does pcgs give pl designations for buffalo nickels?