Two toned Buffalo nickels: OPINIONS SOUGHT (CAUTION: dialuppers)

[James_OldeTowne]

I picked these up a couple of months ago, and only just got time to really look at them. Both of these coins are toned to some degree.

 

The 1913 displays something of a purplish hue on most of the obverse, as well as the southwest quadrant of the reverse. It is somewhat subtle, but I believe the image depicts the coloration accurately. I think it grades MS-64, with the only detraction being a trivial hit in the Indian's hair. It doesn't really show in the image, and in hand, it is not blatant. The luster glitters like a gem, and the strike is wonderful, as it often is on these Type 1 Phillies, and it might well grade MS-65 by certification standards.

 

The 1916 displays several streaks of reddish-violet toning, especially on the reverse. I really do think this coin is a borderline GEM, with simply no detractions, and good luster (for a Buffalo). You can see the toning in the image on the high points of the devices, but the displays no wear at all (though the strike is perhaps a smidge below average).

 

I bought both coins from the same collector, and would appreciate your opinion. Does the toning add or subtract from the appearance of each coin? Should they be dipped? I wouldn't think so, but what do you think? Neither has ever been encapsulated.

 

As an aside, it's interesting to compare the difference between the Type 1 and Type 2 coins side-by-side. Not the high-point hair detail present on the T1, as well as the field rugosity on the reverse, while the T2 lacks these wonderful details.

 

THANKS in advance!

 

 

 

James

[HaydenTubbs]

I personally like them both,but I guess that some people might find those streaks inattractive.

 

Hayden

[BankNote1]

Both look great to me! The only thing is the 1916 looks AU, IMO. There are two areas on the Bison's hip that look flat to me. The Horn and the Indian's nose tip look a tiny touch flat as well. I am looking at a photo and I might be all wet but that is the way it looks to me.

[Hoot]

Very nice coins. I would leave them as-is. That rosey toning that can develop on the 1913 nickels is fabulous. I actually like the streaky toning that commonly develops on the 1914-17 pieces.

 

BankNote1 has a reasonable point about the 1916, but you'll have to be the arbiter of that one. If it's AU, then it's an AU62. When I first looked at the coin, however, I thought that it was an LDS piece, which is less common for a 1916 than MDS and EDS pieces. Note the significant flow lines in the fields.

 

Hoot

[James_OldeTowne]

I feel confident calling the 1916 UNC. I think that what may appear to be wear is merely an artifact of both a slightly worse strike than average, and the angle at which I took the image. In hand, there's no question that the flow lines are intact, and the high points do not display friction.

 

Thanks for the opinions!

 

James

[Buffalo_Pete]

Nice coins....Leave them alone.

 

The 1913 is hammered. Nice strike, with only a trace

of weakness to the Indian's top feather.

 

I'd say 65 for sure.

 

I'll take your word for the "wear" on the 1916 and assume it

is mint state.

 

That said, 1916 Buffs are for the most part struck well. Your specimen

exhibits a softer reverse strike to the head and front shoulder of the

Buff. A little soft on the center obverse, with some die erosion on

the neck.

 

Beautiful coin.

 

I'd say 64 minimum.

 

Pete