Can you grade this 1913 T1 Buffalo Nickel ...assign your best grade using the photos. (I understand coins should be graded in hand so please don't make the comment this is for fun and practice) 1 1

[Mike Meenderink]

[Mike Meenderink]

Im standing on MS66 prove me wrong.

[Sandon]

    If the coin is as dull as it appears in the photos, it is unlikely that it will be graded higher than MS 63 and will more likely receive a MS 62 grade. The intensity and attractiveness of luster is a major factor in the "market grading" of coins, and a coin as dull and lifeless as this 1913 Variety 1 appears to be will not earn a "gem" grade.  The unattractive spotty toning and the weak strike on the bison's head don't help either. 

   Compare the luster and strike on this 1938-D that NGC graded MS 66. (The scratches are on the holder.)

 

[zadok]

...agree with sandon...ms63 at best if that....

[Mike Meenderink]

Sandon I agree the coin is toned but standards up to MS66 accept light or uneven toning as well as light finger marks. The luster you elude to is acceptable as "underlying" in grades below MS66 & and higher require full mint luster only. 

[Mike Meenderink]

The MS66 Indian you posted is close to the grade of my coin . Look at the hip bone on the flank its the same as mine. Mine isn't even touched. The MS 66 Indian is same grade but better luster. I don't just grade on luster and you shouldn't either. details are most important luster is secondary to me.

Edited June 10, 2023 by Mike Meenderink

[VKurtB]

Sorry, Mike, but what I see in the fields of your coin LOOKS LIKE (not saying it is, can’t tell from a photo, sorry) corrosion to me. I realize I’ve broken your thread title’s rules, but hey, there you go. I would grade it MS Details. No numeric grade. If I had it in hand, maybe not.

[Mike Meenderink]

Thanks @VKurtB I thought the same thing..so I payed very little for this coin. ($15.00 eBay) Well it turns out its just toned with a few tarnish spots no corrosion or pitting. So what straight grade would you give it based on details and wear?

Edited June 10, 2023 by Mike Meenderink

[ldhair]

The corrosion spots and the lack of luster keep this coin away from a gem grade. Maybe a 63 but I would not bet on that.

[VKurtB]

On 6/10/2023 at 1:59 PM, Mike Meenderink said:

Thanks VK I thought the same thing..so I payed very little for this coin. ($15.00 eBay) Well it turns out its just toned with a few tarnish spots no corrosion or pitting. So what straight grade would you give it based on details and wear?

Assuming what you say is true, there is only one remaining thing that troubles me potentially. The bison’s back furry part does exhibit shiny bits. Could they be wear?

[VKurtB]

On 6/10/2023 at 2:04 PM, ldhair said:

The corrosion spots and the lack of luster keep this coin away from a gem grade. Maybe a 63 but I would not bet on that.

I can’t see getting near 66. I think Larry has it best nailed at a CEILING of 63. I have a number of Type 1 1913’s, including one with ethereal rainbow toning that shimmers in tilting light. 

Edited June 10, 2023 by VKurtB

[Mike Meenderink]

On 6/10/2023 at 12:05 PM, VKurtB said:

Assuming what you say is true, there is only one remaining thing that troubles me potentially. The bison’s back furry part does exhibit shiny bits. Could they be wear?

I do not see any flattening of that area no. Under 5x there is no visible wear. Horn, flank, cheek, or feather edge. its really nice

[VKurtB]

Just busting’ on ya, but don’t you think it’s a little heavy-handed asking to judge based on a photo and then presenting a coin that is the quintessence of why one should not?

[Mike Meenderink]

On 6/10/2023 at 12:10 PM, VKurtB said:

Just busting’ on ya, but don’t you think it’s a little heavy-handed asking to judge based on a photo and then presenting a coin that is the quintessence of why one should not?

Yhea thats why Im putting it up here because it may have issues and I want all the feedback I can get on it. I was waiting for someone to mention corrosion..but my coin shop says its toning and tiny tarnish spots but no corrosion. Im re evaluating the grade based on comments here.

 

[VKurtB]

On 6/10/2023 at 2:18 PM, Mike Meenderink said:

Yhea thats why Im putting it up here because it may have issues and I want all the feedback I can get on it. I was waiting for someone to mention corrosion..but my coin shop says its toning and tiny tarnish spots but no corrosion. Im re evaluating the grade based on comments here.

 

Well, to fall down the rabbit hole of nit picking, at the margins, ALL toning IS CORROSION. I have ALWAYS said it is. It’s not just to annoy you. I realize that like the vast majority of @RWB’s bizarre pronouncements, this one is my particular unique fetish. 

Edited June 10, 2023 by VKurtB

[Mike Meenderink]

On 6/10/2023 at 12:24 PM, VKurtB said:

Well, to fall down the rabbit hole of nit picking, at the margins, ALL toning IS CORROSION. I have ALWAYS said it is. It’s not just to annoy you. I realize that like the vast majority of @RWB’s bizarre pronouncements, this one is my particular unique fetish. 

You are of course exactly right. All metals even gold (except for the highest refined 22/ 24 K gold and select exotic metals) will tarnish then corrode when exposed to oxygen. Now that being said "toning" would be the lightest of all surface oxidation. Some as we know find this toning desirable while others do not. Then going all the way to severe oxidation and actual loss of mass which creates corrosion and or pitting damage to the planchet. Dug coins often exhibit this pitted or corroded condition. I've seen terribly corroded old type coins sell for large amounts of money. Its in the eye of the beholder I guess...

 

 

[robec1347]

Granted the coin on the left is a 67, but as @VKurtB pointed out the furry bits on the under carriage are quite sparse in comparison. I think enough detail is missing to put this coin in the 63-64 category. I also think luster plays more importance to the graders than what you believe. 
 

[Coinbuf]

On 6/10/2023 at 11:36 AM, Mike Meenderink said:

I don't just grade on luster and you shouldn't either. details are most important luster is secondary to me.

That is fine and your prerogative, however, it would be foolish to send a coin in for grading without knowing and taking into account what is important to the TPG graders.   And while you may not consider luster a big factor in grading the TPGs do consider it a very important part (perhaps the most important part after authenticity) of the grade for mint state coins.   I am agreement with the group that MS63 is the best and would expect it to return as MS62 or equally likely as not gradable due to a few issues like the scratch on the obv cheek and the corrosion.

Edited June 11, 2023 by Coinbuf

[RWB]

AU (real, not phony TPG "AU") but very nicely detailed.

[Henri Charriere]

On 6/10/2023 at 9:46 PM, RWB said:

AU (real, not phony TPG "AU") but very nicely detailed.

I believe the fact that the term "wear," as cavalierly thrown about, would justify your appraisal on the merits.  Since when does the numismatically-loaded term "wear" as wielded by licensed graders enter into a discussion about any Mint State coin?

I am afraid there is an insurmountable conflict of interest between coin sellers and coin buyers. And contrary to the OP's opening post, no member can prove another member wrong. We can simply offer a second opinion.

Ultimately, scattershot terminology notwithstanding, it is a TPGS' opinion that counts and what they are primarily interested in is strike, state of preservation, luster, color and attractiveness--a somewhat subjective variable commonly called eye appeal.

I had a 1937 Buffalo Head nickel which was a dead ringer for the 1938 example exhibited above. I gifted it to a friend who submitted it and was kind enough to post the verdict: MS-66.  If the OP forked over $15. for his coin, it is likely he got what he paid for and formal grading would be superfluous and a bit uneconomical, but that is a choice only he can make.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 6/10/2023 at 2:36 PM, Mike Meenderink said:

The MS 66 Indian is same grade but better luster. I don't just grade on luster and you shouldn't either. details are most important luster is secondary to me.

I can't speak on Nickels and smaller coins, but on gold and silver coins like Saints/Morgans....luster is VERY high if not at the top. 

[J P M]

Using the shot. It looks 60 to 63 to me like others have mentioned a week strike and tarnish, the words Liberty and Cents is a bit worn near the rim .Scratch on the face and head and a very smooth rim. A 66 would be a nice gift from the grader.

[Jason Abshier]

I used to collect Buffalo Nickels they were one of my favorite US coins … I would say this one would probably grade out a solid MS63 perhaps if it had more luster (picture you provide seems like the coin is toned duller) which is normal for the age but if it had more luster it would grade out little higher in a PCGS holder … NGC take strikes in consideration more than luster or toning , and PCGS on the other hand likes to go after luster and rainbow toning more than strike when grading 

[zadok]

On 6/11/2023 at 6:55 AM, J P M said:

Using the shot. It looks 60 to 63 to me like others have mentioned a week strike and tarnish, the words Liberty and Cents is a bit worn near the rim .Scratch on the face and head and a very smooth rim. A 66 would be a nice gift from the grader.

...i understand where u r coming from...however, "60 to 63" n "bit worn" r not mutually inclusive, its one or the other not both...ur observation on the line across the face is probably the most definitive, depending on the coin in hand that line could relegate the coin to details....

[VKurtB]

On 6/10/2023 at 8:46 PM, RWB said:

AU (real, not phony TPG "AU") but very nicely detailed.

This could VERY WELL be the case here. If I had it in my grubby little hands, I could say for sure.

[VKurtB]

On 6/10/2023 at 9:38 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I can't speak on Nickels and smaller coins, but on gold and silver coins like Saints/Morgans....luster is VERY high if not at the top. 

Luster is, for me personally, ALMOST THE ONLY thing I care about when looking at a coin to add to my “non-junk stuff” collections. Really nasty hits do count for me, but I’m not in there with a strong glass counting tiny ticks. I just don’t roll that way. 

Edited June 11, 2023 by VKurtB

[VKurtB]

On 6/11/2023 at 7:25 AM, zadok said:

...i understand where u r coming from...however, "60 to 63" n "bit worn" r not mutually inclusive, its one or the other not both...ur observation on the line across the face is probably the most definitive, depending on the coin in hand that line could relegate the coin to details....

The entire range of 55-63 is a very “schmutzy” business these days. Yes, I acknowledge that strict technical grading says not. @RWB and @Insider and the Chief Enforcer over at CoinTalk can protest all they like, but the days where technical grading was worth a 🐀’s 🫏 died lonnnng ago. It’s over. Done. Bury it. A technical 58 coin is, to me, usually VASTLY superior to a technical 61, and a RATIONAL (defined: rational is the antonym of technical) grading system needs to reflect that reality. 

[zadok]

On 6/11/2023 at 11:30 AM, VKurtB said:

The entire range of 55-63 is a very “schmutzy” business these days. Yes, I acknowledge that strict technical grading says not. @RWB and @Insider and the Chief Enforcer over at CoinTalk can protest all they like, but the days where technical grading was worth a 🐀’s 🫏 died lonnnng ago. It’s over. Done. Bury it. A technical 58 coin is, to me, usually VASTLY superior to a technical 61, and a RATIONAL (defined: rational is the antonym of technical) grading system needs to reflect that reality. 

...i agree, i would much prefer a choice AU58 to a MS61 coin any day...but the diff between a 55 n a 60 coin is discernible...RWB's opinions on grading r non sequitur n never enter into my evaluations on the subject....

[RWB]

On 6/10/2023 at 10:28 PM, Henri Charriere said:

I am afraid there is an insurmountable conflict of interest between coin sellers and coin buyers. And contrary to the OP's opening post, no member can prove another member wrong. We can simply offer a second opinion.

This was the cornerstone of coin buying/selling before the TPGs  promised consistency, but delivered confusion. Buyer and seller negotiated, usually within the boundary of an accepted grading guidebook. Each balanced their opinions versus price to create personal desirability. "Luster: was just one of those opinion-based attributes, and no one tried to FORCE it into the "grade" or wear.

[RWB]

On 6/11/2023 at 2:08 PM, zadok said:

RWB's opinions on grading r non sequitur n never enter into my evaluations on the subject....

That merely emphasizes your loss.