Options
1914/3 Buffalo Nickel Overdate to Remain in Cherrypickers’ Guide
CaptHenway
Posts: 31,550 ✭✭✭✭✭
1914/3 Buffalo Nickel Overdate to Remain in Cherrypickers’ Guide
Upon further review, Bill Fivaz, J.T. Stanton and I have decided that we stand by our original opinions that some 1914/3 nickels do exist as true overdates. We acknowledge that all of the 13 dies considered as P-mint overdates do show mint-made die tooling marks in the area of the crossbar of the 3 behind the top of the 4. We do not feel that this tooling, which does blur the outline of the 3 (as presumably the Mint’s engraver[s] intended to do) disqualifies the more obvious dies as being overdates. We acknowledge that some of the less obvious dies could reasonably be delisted as overdates.
To the best of our knowledge, Kevin Flynn stands by his opinion that the 1914/3 nickels cannot be accepted as true overdates because the mint-made die tooling marks have sufficiently obscured whatever they were intended to obscure, to the point that the things they were intended to obscure cannot be positively identified as the remains of previously-hubbed 3’s or partial 3’s. Bill, J.T. and I recognize Mr. Flynn’s right to his own opinion.
Various of the “experts” (Mr. Flynn’s quote marks) consulted in this review agree with Bill, J.T. and I. Others disagree, or remain unconvinced one way or the other. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. However, it cannot be said at this time that the hobby as a whole has rejected or refuted the 1914/3 overdates. Consequently, Bill and J.T. hereby announce that the 1914/3 Nickel will remain in the Cherrypickers’ Guide, and I agree with their decision.
Tom DeLorey
Upon further review, Bill Fivaz, J.T. Stanton and I have decided that we stand by our original opinions that some 1914/3 nickels do exist as true overdates. We acknowledge that all of the 13 dies considered as P-mint overdates do show mint-made die tooling marks in the area of the crossbar of the 3 behind the top of the 4. We do not feel that this tooling, which does blur the outline of the 3 (as presumably the Mint’s engraver[s] intended to do) disqualifies the more obvious dies as being overdates. We acknowledge that some of the less obvious dies could reasonably be delisted as overdates.
To the best of our knowledge, Kevin Flynn stands by his opinion that the 1914/3 nickels cannot be accepted as true overdates because the mint-made die tooling marks have sufficiently obscured whatever they were intended to obscure, to the point that the things they were intended to obscure cannot be positively identified as the remains of previously-hubbed 3’s or partial 3’s. Bill, J.T. and I recognize Mr. Flynn’s right to his own opinion.
Various of the “experts” (Mr. Flynn’s quote marks) consulted in this review agree with Bill, J.T. and I. Others disagree, or remain unconvinced one way or the other. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. However, it cannot be said at this time that the hobby as a whole has rejected or refuted the 1914/3 overdates. Consequently, Bill and J.T. hereby announce that the 1914/3 Nickel will remain in the Cherrypickers’ Guide, and I agree with their decision.
Tom DeLorey
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
0
Comments
At this moment I personally remain on the sidelines for both sides of this argument.
What I understood from reading what you posted Tom, along with what Bill and J.T. would backup, is that you have no solid evidence of an overdate existing, but merely a 1) 'blurred outline of a [undertype] 3', and 2) the multiple die coincidences that there is evidence of die tooling by the date which coincidentally (or not) resemble parts of the #3.
Edited to add: None of this tells me that an actual 1914/3 overdate exists as such
<< <i>1914/3 Buffalo Nickel Overdate to Remain in Cherrypickers’ Guide
Upon further review, Bill Fivaz, J.T. Stanton and I have decided that we stand by our original opinions that some 1914/3 nickels do exist as true overdates. We acknowledge that all of the 13 dies considered as P-mint overdates do show mint-made die tooling marks in the area of the crossbar of the 3 behind the top of the 4. We do not feel that this tooling, which does blur the outline of the 3 (as presumably the Mint’s engraver[s] intended to do) disqualifies the more obvious dies as being overdates. We acknowledge that some of the less obvious dies could reasonably be delisted as overdates.
To the best of our knowledge, Kevin Flynn stands by his opinion that the 1914/3 nickels cannot be accepted as true overdates because the mint-made die tooling marks have sufficiently obscured whatever they were intended to obscure, to the point that the things they were intended to obscure cannot be positively identified as the remains of previously-hubbed 3’s or partial 3’s. Bill, J.T. and I recognize Mr. Flynn’s right to his own opinion.
Various of the “experts” (Mr. Flynn’s quote marks) consulted in this review agree with Bill, J.T. and I. Others disagree, or remain unconvinced one way or the other. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. However, it cannot be said at this time that the hobby as a whole has rejected or refuted the 1914/3 overdates. Consequently, Bill and J.T. hereby announce that the 1914/3 Nickel will remain in the Cherrypickers’ Guide, and I agree with their decision.
Tom DeLorey >>
IMO, this was never a open discussion between the "experts".
For example, Bill said "I personally feel there are at least 6 of the 1914/3 Philly Mint dies that are overdated", I asked which ones to narrow down the discussion, he refused to answer. Bill said he believed some did not contain a crossbar, I asked which ones he believed did not, so again to concentrate our efforts, again he refused to answer.
Tom says here that Bill and JT believe some of the 13 1914/3 Phila struck coins are true overdates, which ones???????
I did a complete detailed analysis specifically on die #1, which I also presented in another thread. I asked Bill and Tom to look at details of die #1 and present their opinion on the same. For example, that the "crossbar" was simply a jagged edge die scratch and did not have the shape or size of the crossbar. Tom and Bill refused to answer or present their analysis of the details. They stayed with the broad generalized character that it looked like the top of a 3. I would agree that if you look at the general shape and size from a broad perspective, some look like the top of a 3, its when you examine the details of the extra metal that it shows they are not.
Tom speaks of tooling obscuring the outline of the crossbar, but several of these have no tooling, and no outline to the crossbar. Die scratches was not seen on the back side of the 4 on most of these, yet the details of the outline of the metal is not the same as the top right of a 3. You also have for example several of these that show the triangular shaped metal on the back extending downward towards the center crossbar, which is much to big to be the top right of the 3.
Some would be of the opinion, that there has to be evidence to refute a variety, and that if you cannot explain what it is, it must by default be the top of a digit. I would disagree, and state that IMO, the physical evidence of the variety must validate it to be an overdate.
Of course, if anyone has an EDS specimen which shows the clear remnants of a 3, we would love to examine.
IMO, collectors should not listen to any "expert", they should make the determination yourself as it is your money you are spending.
The vast majority of collectors who wrote me stated before reading my article that they did not believe it to be an overdate. Obviously if you find one of these unattributed and pay no premium, that is great. IMO if you pay a premium, then you should understand the acceptance by collectors if you are someday going to sell this. Just be cautious and knowledgeable.
Kevin
I checked a higher-grade 1914 nickel that I already owned ($20 Atlantic City antique show purchase).
Although it had differences from the initial discovery coin, I concluded that it was a second die and was
a legitimate 1914/3 over-date. I reported it to CONECA and it was shown in their newsletter as a "second"
1914/3 die (I think it was classified as the "Die 2" version, but I'm not sure).
I sold that coin a few months after that.
Anyway, I believe that it was an intentional re-hubbing by the mint, with a "1914" hubbed over some
unfinished "1913" hubs that the Mint already had. To me, the die scratching over the top crossbar of the
"3" is an indication that the Mint knew what was there, and they did what they could to eraditate the
over-date. In contrast, the Mint didn't seem to care about other die defects such as clashed "E Pluribus Unum"
under the chins and the dies were continually used in that state. I believe the dies in question showed the
over-date as hubbed and that is why they were worked on before they went into use. On the other hand,
the clashing occured later while the dies were already in use, and that is why no effort was made to efface
the clash marks.
Some people have argued that since the 1918/7-D overdate is so plain and strong across the entire digit,
any 1914/3 over-date should be the same. I think the 1918/7-D overdate was an accidental hubbing on
one die, and it went unnoticed. The 1914/3 over-dates were intentional (to use up existing hubs), and since
it was known ahead of time, efforts were taken to "work" the dies. Also, if you look at the famed 1916/1916
doubled die, the under-date is strongest at the top and fades out completely near the bottom.
I think the evidence is not entirely conclusive either way, but I have my opinion.
<< <i>I think the evidence is not entirely conclusive either way, but I have my opinion. >>
and well stated. nice and not offensive to either party.
.
<< <i>When the original overdate discovery was announced in 1999 or 2000 (I think),
I checked a higher-grade 1914 nickel that I already owned ($20 Atlantic City antique show purchase).
Although it had differences from the initial discovery coin, I concluded that it was a second die and was
a legitimate 1914/3 over-date. I reported it to CONECA and it was shown in their newsletter as a "second"
1914/3 die (I think it was classified as the "Die 2" version, but I'm not sure).
I sold that coin a few months after that.
Anyway, I believe that it was an intentional re-hubbing by the mint, with a "1914" hubbed over some
unfinished "1913" hubs that the Mint already had. To me, the die scratching over the top crossbar of the
"3" is an indication that the Mint knew what was there, and they did what they could to eraditate the
over-date. In contrast, the Mint didn't seem to care about other die defects such as clashed "E Pluribus Unum"
under the chins and the dies were continually used in that state. I believe the dies in question showed the
over-date as hubbed and that is why they were worked on before they went into use. On the other hand,
the clashing occured later while the dies were already in use, and that is why no effort was made to efface
the clash marks.
Some people have argued that since the 1918/7-D overdate is so plain and strong across the entire digit,
any 1914/3 over-date should be the same. I think the 1918/7-D overdate was an accidental hubbing on
one die, and it went unnoticed. The 1914/3 over-dates were intentional (to use up existing hubs), and since
it was known ahead of time, efforts were taken to "work" the dies. Also, if you look at the famed 1916/1916
doubled die, the under-date is strongest at the top and fades out completely near the bottom.
I think the evidence is not entirely conclusive either way, but I have my opinion. >>
You are listed in Ron Pope's very useful book "The Abraded Die Varieties" as the discoverer of Die variety #06, which is one of the stronger ones, comparable to dies # 01 & 02. It was listed in the Sept-Oct, 2000 issue of "The Hub." It does usually have clash marks under the chin, as you remember.
<< <i>You are listed in Ron Pope's very useful book "The Abraded Die Varieties" as the discoverer of Die variety #06, which is one of the stronger ones, comparable to dies # 01 & 02. It was listed in the Sept-Oct, 2000 issue of "The Hub." It does usually have clash marks under the chin, as you remember. >>
Thanks for that info, now I know.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i> IMO, this was never a open discussion between the "experts".
For example, Bill said "I personally feel there are at least 6 of the 1914/3 Philly Mint dies that are overdated", I asked which ones to narrow down the discussion, he refused to answer. Bill said he believed some did not contain a crossbar, I asked which ones he believed did not, so again to concentrate our efforts, again he refused to answer.
Tom says here that Bill and JT believe some of the 13 1914/3 Phila struck coins are true overdates, which ones???????
I did a complete detailed analysis specifically on die #1, which I also presented in another thread. I asked Bill and Tom to look at details of die #1 and present their opinion on the same. For example, that the "crossbar" was simply a jagged edge die scratch and did not have the shape or size of the crossbar. Tom and Bill refused to answer or present their analysis of the details. They stayed with the broad generalized character that it looked like the top of a 3. I would agree that if you look at the general shape and size from a broad perspective, some look like the top of a 3, its when you examine the details of the extra metal that it shows they are not.
Tom speaks of tooling obscuring the outline of the crossbar, but several of these have no tooling, and no outline to the crossbar. Die scratches was not seen on the back side of the 4 on most of these, yet the details of the outline of the metal is not the same as the top right of a 3. You also have for example several of these that show the triangular shaped metal on the back extending downward towards the center crossbar, which is much to big to be the top right of the 3.
Some would be of the opinion, that there has to be evidence to refute a variety, and that if you cannot explain what it is, it must by default be the top of a digit. I would disagree, and state that IMO, the physical evidence of the variety must validate it to be an overdate. Of course, if anyone has an EDS specimen which shows the clear remnants of a 3, we would love to examine. IMO, collectors should not listen to any "expert", they should make the determination yourself as it is your money you are spending.
The vast majority of collectors who wrote me stated before reading my article that they did not believe it to be an overdate. Obviously if you find one of these unattributed and pay no premium, that is great. IMO if you pay a premium, then you should understand the acceptance by collectors if you are someday going to sell this. Just be cautious and knowledgeable.
Kevin >>
Why is “expert” put in quotation marks?
<< <i>Being somewhat new to this Forum,but not to collecting, I will follow with great interest to see how this issue is resolved. Not so much as to what it's final resolution will be, if there ever is one, but more so in the process of how it is resolved. >>
It will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, unless perhaps the Engraving Department's "Register of Dies" for 1913 and 1914 should fortuitously appear and it should happen to contain a notation to the effect that "20 working dies with the 1913 date were redated with the 1914 hub" or whatever.
Unfortunately, RWB has said ATS that the Register appears to have disappeared sometime after 1960.
<< <i>It will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, unless perhaps the Engraving Department's "Register of Dies" for 1913 and 1914 should fortuitously appear and it should happen to contain a notation to the effect that "20 working dies with the 1913 date were redated with the 1914 hub" or whatever.
Unfortunately, RWB has said ATS that the Register appears to have disappeared sometime after 1960. >>
Tom,
I really really really regret, again, to have to say that you are absolutely incorrect/wrong/mistaken.
Kevin
Have a nice day!
Tom
Upon further review, Bill Fivaz, J.T. Stanton and I have decided that we stand by our original opinions that some 1914/3 nickels do exist as true overdates. We acknowledge that all of the 13 dies considered as P-mint overdates do show mint-made die tooling marks in the area of the crossbar of the 3 behind the top of the 4. We do not feel that this tooling, which does blur the outline of the 3 (as presumably the Mint’s engraver[s] intended to do) disqualifies the more obvious dies as being overdates. We acknowledge that some of the less obvious dies could reasonably be delisted as overdates.
To the best of our knowledge, Kevin Flynn stands by his opinion that the 1914/3 nickels cannot be accepted as true overdates because the mint-made die tooling marks have sufficiently obscured whatever they were intended to obscure, to the point that the things they were intended to obscure cannot be positively identified as the remains of previously-hubbed 3’s or partial 3’s. Bill, J.T. and I recognize Mr. Flynn’s right to his own opinion.
Various of the “experts” (Mr. Flynn’s quote marks) consulted in this review agree with Bill, J.T. and I. Others disagree, or remain unconvinced one way or the other. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. However, it cannot be said at this time that the hobby as a whole has rejected or refuted the 1914/3 overdates. Consequently, Bill and J.T. hereby announce that the 1914/3 Nickel will remain in the Cherrypickers’ Guide, and I agree with their decision.
Tom DeLorey
>>
I find that your knowledge of the issue is of great insight. But it is an opinion more than it is a fact. This issue may never be resolved amongst "experts" in the subject. The questioned overdate issue seems to be argued under significant magnification. Given the number of dies that the mint utilizes to produce coinage, there can be significant variation amongst the different dies that can only be verified with significant magnification. And while there are collectors of varieties such as these, this does not suggest that all of these varieties deserve significant acknowledgment. If a variety is not apparent to the naked eye, then it should not be considered to be part of a standard set. And inclusion into a date plus varieties set is OK, but not without controversy, as you well know.
A reasonable line needs to be drawn on what constitutes a variety.
OINK
<< <i><<1914/3 Buffalo Nickel Overdate to Remain in Cherrypickers’ Guide
Upon further review, Bill Fivaz, J.T. Stanton and I have decided that we stand by our original opinions that some 1914/3 nickels do exist as true overdates. We acknowledge that all of the 13 dies considered as P-mint overdates do show mint-made die tooling marks in the area of the crossbar of the 3 behind the top of the 4. We do not feel that this tooling, which does blur the outline of the 3 (as presumably the Mint’s engraver[s] intended to do) disqualifies the more obvious dies as being overdates. We acknowledge that some of the less obvious dies could reasonably be delisted as overdates.
To the best of our knowledge, Kevin Flynn stands by his opinion that the 1914/3 nickels cannot be accepted as true overdates because the mint-made die tooling marks have sufficiently obscured whatever they were intended to obscure, to the point that the things they were intended to obscure cannot be positively identified as the remains of previously-hubbed 3’s or partial 3’s. Bill, J.T. and I recognize Mr. Flynn’s right to his own opinion.
Various of the “experts” (Mr. Flynn’s quote marks) consulted in this review agree with Bill, J.T. and I. Others disagree, or remain unconvinced one way or the other. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. However, it cannot be said at this time that the hobby as a whole has rejected or refuted the 1914/3 overdates. Consequently, Bill and J.T. hereby announce that the 1914/3 Nickel will remain in the Cherrypickers’ Guide, and I agree with their decision.
Tom DeLorey
>>
I find that your knowledge of the issue is of great insight. But it is an opinion more than it is a fact. This issue may never be resolved amongst "experts" in the subject. The questioned overdate issue seems to be argued under significant magnification. Given the number of dies that the mint utilizes to produce coinage, there can be significant variation amongst the different dies that can only be verified with significant magnification. And while there are collectors of varieties such as these, this does not suggest that all of these varieties deserve significant acknowledgment. If a variety is not apparent to the naked eye, then it should not be considered to be part of a standard set. And inclusion into a date plus varieties set is OK, but not without controversy, as you well know.
A reasonable line needs to be drawn on what constitutes a variety.
OINK >>
Well, if all varieties that can't be seen with the naked eye shouldn't be considered that should eliminate all RPMs and OMMs as well as a few other overdates such as the 43/42 Jefferson 5c.
<< <i>Well, if all varieties that can't be seen with the naked eye shouldn't be considered that should eliminate all RPMs and OMMs as well as a few other overdates such as the 43/42 Jefferson 5c. >>
I think his point was that they be obvious and self-evident. With many RPMs and OMMs, you can see the clear distingusihable outline of part of the underlying secondary mint mark.
But as you bring up OMMs, consider the 1938D/S Buffalo. There was believed to be 6 different OMMs. ANACS first questioned several of these, upon re-evaluation and overlays, several of these were shown just to be RPMs and not OMMs. Sometimes things get pulled into a general category, and sometimes we see what we want to see. Here we have 13 different Philadelphia varieties, that are categorized together because they have extra metal or die scratches around the 4. The physical evidence is the most important element IMO.
Kevin
<< <i>I find that your knowledge of the issue is of great insight. But it is an opinion more than it is a fact. This issue may never be resolved amongst "experts" in the subject. The questioned overdate issue seems to be argued under significant magnification. Given the number of dies that the mint utilizes to produce coinage, there can be significant variation amongst the different dies that can only be verified with significant magnification. And while there are collectors of varieties such as these, this does not suggest that all of these varieties deserve significant acknowledgment. If a variety is not apparent to the naked eye, then it should not be considered to be part of a standard set. And inclusion into a date plus varieties set is OK, but not without controversy, as you well know. A reasonable line needs to be drawn on what constitutes a variety.OINK >>
My point on "experts", is exactly what you are implying, its your money, your investment, you need to become your own expert on a variety such as this if you are choosing to pay a premium for it. Read everything you can to learn as much as you can, determine what is opinion, fact, conclusions, and study the varieties, decide for yourself, become your own expert and make the judgment based on your own observations and expertise. If you believe they are questionable, do what you believe is reasonable. I felt good hearing from collectors who wrote me and said they had decided whether they were an overdate based upon their own observations.
Kevin
<< <i>Some would be of the opinion, that there has to be evidence to refute a variety, and that if you cannot explain what it is, it must by default be the top of a digit. I would disagree, and state that IMO, the physical evidence of the variety must validate it to be an overdate. >>
Traditional 'overdates' do not always turn out to actually be overdates! People can get it wrong occasionally. Case in point the recent debunking of the supposed 1862/1 Three Cent Silver piece, which turned out to just be a die line. This apparent overdate was discovered 50+ years ago, yet only in the last couple years has serious analysis been conducted on this piece to show it actually isn't an overdate at all. And yet again the TPG's are still slabbing this variety as such...as far as I am aware.
The '1861/0' Half-Dime is another example which isn't an overdate (ref. MrHalfDime's discussions) yet the TPG's continue to slab them as such.
Recently, your refusal to 'believe' the supposed 1936/29-S Mercury Dime 'possible overdate' (as per the CPG designation) without providing any in-depth analysis yourself, except a visual inspection was also worrisome. Why didn't you believe this to be a possible overdate at first? Yet you apparently had no/little problem calling some 1914 Buffalo Nickels definitely 1914/3 overdates? Why not also call the '1914/3' dies/coins 'possible overdates' rather than 'definite overdates'?
Edited to add: I believe you are now the one 'beating a dead horse' as you so eloquently like to say.
<< <i>Tom,
Traditional 'overdates' do not always turn out to actually be overdates! People can get it wrong occasionally. Case in point the recent debunking of the supposed 1862/1 Three Cent Silver piece, which turned out to just be a die line. This apparent overdate was discovered 50+ years ago, yet only in the last couple years has serious analysis been conducted on this piece to show it actually isn't an overdate at all. And yet again the TPG's are still slabbing this variety as such...as far as I am aware.
The '1861/0' Half-Dime is another example which isn't an overdate (ref. MrHalfDime's discussions) yet the TPG's continue to slab them as such.
Recently, your refusal to 'believe' the supposed 1936/29-S Mercury Dime 'possible overdate' (as per the CPG designation) without providing any in-depth analysis yourself, except a visual inspection was also worrisome. Why didn't you believe this to be a possible overdate at first? Yet you apparently had no/little problem calling some 1914 Buffalo Nickels definitely 1914/3 overdates? Why not also call the '1914/3' dies/coins 'possible overdates' rather than 'definite overdates'?
Edited to add: I believe you are now the one 'beating a dead horse' as you so eloquently like to say. >>
I do not recall ever using that phrase. Can you please cite an example?
TPGs can use the FS number as an attribution, it's not saying the TPG agrees with the cause, it's saying the coin is from the die or dies listed in the book with that number.
I would prefer if they only listed specific dies with a single FS number, don't use an FS number to describe a group of dies (like this).
Most listings are for specific dies. Most die varieties can be attributed or verified by markers (even if markers are not shown in the CPG) it makes things confusing if a listing/number is used for multiple dies.
<< <i>
<< <i>Tom,
Traditional 'overdates' do not always turn out to actually be overdates! People can get it wrong occasionally. Case in point the recent debunking of the supposed 1862/1 Three Cent Silver piece, which turned out to just be a die line. This apparent overdate was discovered 50+ years ago, yet only in the last couple years has serious analysis been conducted on this piece to show it actually isn't an overdate at all. And yet again the TPG's are still slabbing this variety as such...as far as I am aware.
The '1861/0' Half-Dime is another example which isn't an overdate (ref. MrHalfDime's discussions) yet the TPG's continue to slab them as such.
Recently, your refusal to 'believe' the supposed 1936/29-S Mercury Dime 'possible overdate' (as per the CPG designation) without providing any in-depth analysis yourself, except a visual inspection was also worrisome. Why didn't you believe this to be a possible overdate at first? Yet you apparently had no/little problem calling some 1914 Buffalo Nickels definitely 1914/3 overdates? Why not also call the '1914/3' dies/coins 'possible overdates' rather than 'definite overdates'?
Edited to add: I believe you are now the one 'beating a dead horse' as you so eloquently like to say. >>
I do not recall ever using that phrase. Can you please cite an example? >>
Tom,
Who cares about the phrase, there were some important questions/suggestions made, would it not be important to address them?
You like quotes Tom, what about yours:
"As to Die #1, I still believe that it is a true 4/3 overdate with the remains of the 3 intentionally degraded, but not eliminated, on the die. ...Since the only option for an underdate on a 1914 nickel is a 1913, I feel confident in calling it a 1914/3.
As to Die #2, I definitely believe that it is a true 4/3 overdate with the remains of the 3 intentionally degraded, but less so than Die #1, on the die. The remains of the 3 can clearly be seen even if they are less than crystal clear and perfect. The fact that you cannot see them does not mean that they are not there."
IMO, saying that the default should be an overdate is incorrect. If you cannot see them, how can you prove that they are there?
IMO, your thread would have been more creditable if you had stated that you had absolutely believed die #2 was an overdate, and that die #1 was less so, but that you still believed it to be an overdate. The others you have called less distinct.
You use the phrase "crystal clear and perfect", do you not agree that none of these varieties has the exact outline that matches the top of a 3? You have said you believed this was because the engraver obscured it. But without an outline, how can you prove it to be the remnants of a 3? And it is not just the outline, the entire crossbar and back of the 3 on the working hub is raised, those parts hubbed into the working die would have been incused. Even if these were partially hubbed, if the top of the 3 is there, those part of the crossbar which are equal distant from the center of the hub should have been also hubbed.
Kevin
<< <i>I think the CPG can describe a die as being "suspected" or "probably" or "some experts think" or "not all experts agree".
TPGs can use the FS number as an attribution, it's not saying the TPG agrees with the cause, it's saying the coin is from the die or dies listed in the book with that number.
I would prefer if they only listed specific dies with a single FS number, don't use an FS number to describe a group of dies (like this).
Most listings are for specific dies. Most die varieties can be attributed or verified by markers (even if markers are not shown in the CPG) it makes things confusing if a listing/number is used for multiple dies. >>
From what I understand, PCGS will only attribute die #2, and EDS of die #1 as 4/3.
CPG only shows die #2.
I agree, if a TPG service is referencing an FS number, it only should be done if it is the applicable die in CPG, would get extremely confusing for the collector, especially with an auction that is sight unseen.
The deviation that TPG services use is generalized reference numbers. For example, Breen has many varieties listed under a breen number, such as "Several repunched dates known", with no photo. I have seen
TPG services refer to these breen numbers for varieties that fall under this generalized category.
I agree also that if TPG services attribute to a reference number, it does not mean that they agree with the case.
IMO opinion, TPG services that guarantee their designation, and I believe PCGS does, might run into a problem for a 4/3 designation, as it obviously questionable and not absolute, especially given that NGC will not currently certify them as an overdate as they do not believe there is enough evidence to do so.
Kevin
It would also be nice if you wouldn't circumvent the important questions being asked for you!
That would make the 1955 DDO the only Lincoln worth consideration as a variety.The criteria I use is very simple for the coin to be considered a variety.Can I see the "whatever" under magnification with my 10x loupe? If so,I'm likely looking at what we all might be able to agree is a variety.
A few years ago I read where QDB says that any coin with a mintmark is a variety. For example,1911 D Lincoln is a variety.1911 S is yet another variety.If there is such a thing as 1911 S/S that would be another variety of the 1911 Lincoln cent.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
As a collector,if I felt that I needed a PCGS graded example of 1914/3 Nickel from what? die #2 then I should be ready to pay what the market says one is worth.If unwilling to pay the price asked for,whatever the item is called,then simply pass.Challenge yourself and try to find a raw example of the item of your fancy on your own.There's nothing like a search like this that will give one a sense how scarce an item really is.Be aware that one's interests can easily shift to other coins while searching for something as exotic,and presumably rare, as a 1914/3 Nickel because you'll need to look at alot,many pounds,of 1914 Nickels to have even the slightest hope of finding a 1914/3.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>I would just like to mention that CaptHenway provided us all in this forum with great information on what to look for to detect bogus 1909-S V.D.B. >>
That is grand, but if someone here makes an assertion/statement/claim, do you not think they should address comments/questions/suggestions?
In reading the many posts from Tom, he has asked/challenged the same of others.
In this particular instance, whereas Tom says he believe the 1914/3 are true overdates. IMO is it not important that there are 13 known varieties. That Tom had said die #2 absolute, #1 yes, but less so than #2, and the others have less detail. That Bill Fivaz has said that he believed of the 13, he believed 6 were overdates. What is the basis for the difference? What criteria does Bill use that Tom does not that determines this difference?
IMO is it not important, to understand their perspective. IMO, in this case, they are using a broad generalized character to describe the underlying 3, without using the actual physicial evidence on the variety. During the discussion with Tom and Bill, they both refused to talk about their perspective of the details of the location of the die scratches and the shape and size of the metal. IMO, that they have formed an opinion is great, everyone has the right to their opinion, but IMO it is also important to state the basis of their opinion so that the collector understands their perspective.
Kevin
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Edit for spelling.
<< <i>its your money, your investment, you need to become your own expert >>
Haven't read all post in this thread but this one sentence sums up the whole hobby not just varieties.
did someone actually say this?? who??
But, some time back I came across pictures of one that appeared to be well struck and in an earlier die state.
I do not recall which die it was claimed to be struck from, but as I looked closely, I realized that there was certainly some validity to the claim that the coin was indeed special.
The one in the photo that I saw was a real beauty and the horizontal bar running across the top of the 4 left little doubt in my head that the coin may be the real deal.
The horizontally placed bar looked like the top of a numeral 3.
Cherrypickers probably knows this, (they may have seen the same coin) and chose to keep it in...at least for now.
Given the pics of the coin that I saw, their decision seems reasonable to me... at least pending further study and review.
<< <i>I am behind the times and am just getting bought up to speed in this raging controversy concerning the 1914/3 overdate buffalo nickels as detailed in these threads. I have collected buffalo nickels for over 60 years and am well aware of the 1914 overdates that were discovered around 1999-2000. I have looked at a lot of these 1914 nickels and some of them are definitely overdates. All this talk is much like the middle ages controversy of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin! The 1914/3 overdate lives. Get used to it. (So does the 1914/3-s and 1914/3-d). long live FS-014.87, FS-014.88, and FS-014.89 >>
I would respectfully disagree. When these varieties were first discovered in 1996, I agreed that they looked like a 4/3. But after John Wexler started to examine them in more detail, I found out that NGC and ANACS refused to call them 4/3 overdates, I studied closely the physical evidence and concluded that the evidence clearly showed that they were not remnants of an underlying 3. Physical evidence speaks for itself, if you would like to see my write up on this please send me an email at kevinjflynn88@yahoo.com and I will send you the PDF with photos.
If you have physical evidence such as an early die state without the die scratches that shows the clear outline of a 3, please present.
Kevin
<< <i>The remains of the 3 can clearly be seen even if they are less than crystal clear and perfect. The fact that you cannot see them does not mean that they are not there.
did someone actually say this?? who?? >>
Tom Delorey said this
IMO, kinda contradicts itself
branched out to Denver and San Francisco, I was pretty sure that it was all Master Die. Given
the appearance of the other overdates from this time period (1909/8 $20, 1918/7-D 5C, 1918/7-S 25C)
with extremely clear "under date" features, I think it is unreasonable to call these true overdates.
But that is just me.....
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
a few have a real strong cross bar but a lot do not. If you want one for your set, find a clear one and then leave it at that. As far as sending it to pcgs for cert, good luck. i never recommended that
but if you did and were lucky to get the 1914/3 designation then you made some nice $$$. As far as the s-mint, and especially the d-mint the results were a bit less obvious. Especially the d-mint which was feature in a Coin World article "Hitting for the cycle with the 1914/3-d nickel" which appeared in an early 2001 edition of Coin World. Apparently only one dies is involved and it has a die break on the obverse of the coin extending downwards from about 9 o'clock into the middle. The crossbar was just a faint wisp. Wonder if the s and d mint overdates will remain with their fs numbers. Once a coin has been assigned an FS number then it takes on a life of its own. Pretty near impossible and impractile to delist something once the horse is out of the barn. I seriously doubt fs-014.87, fs-014.88 and fs-014.89 will ever disappear, and these are the old style fs numbers, not the new ones.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
<< <i>George H W Bush (first pres bush) once said "If it looks like a tax cut, walks like a tax cut, and quacks like a tax cut, it IS a tax cut. (taken from if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck) In the case of this overdate it does look like an overdate, it walks like an overdate, and sure as heck quacks like an overdate, therefore……….. >>
LOL, the tax analogy might be an appropriate comparison, how many times have read a tax law, tried to apply it based upon what you saw, then realize through some of the more detailed examples or requirements, that it was not was it seemed, the details were important. For example, you have a kid in college, you can deduct a portion of the costs under IRS-8863, Education Credits. The basic logic is that you can deduct those costs for tuition that you paid for. So for the spring semester, one would think in is part of that year, even when you enter the cost for the spring in turbo tax, it asks what you paid and enters it. Then the IRS calls you and says you made a mistake, the txt of the law is generalized, but some of the specific examples, the details state its irrelevant when the actual classes are, the important aspect is when you physically paid for the classes.
On the 1914/3, the same is true. Like you and many others, when I wrote Treasure Hunting Buffalo Nickels with John Wexler and Ron Pope, I accepted these as an overdate because of the general "look and feel" from a high level perspective. When you study the details of the die scratches, the shape, size, contour of the metal, then the only conclusion based on the physical evidence is that it cannot be the remnants of an underlying 3.
Kevin