Concerning the "1922" coin, based on the available pictures, I note the following:
As previously mentioned, from 1920 to 1925 the left cord hung in a more-vertical position. Starting in 1926 the cord meandered farther to the left, ending up under the last digit in the date.
The "1922" coin appears to exhibit the 1926 version, which did not yet exist in 1922.
The second "2" in the date is not exactly like the first "2".
So my conclusion is that the "1922" coin has an altered date, made from a 1928. A closer examination would be required to tell for sure, however.
I noticed that wider and thinner base on the second "2" when I looked at it years ago. I did not notice the position of the ribbon or the differences at the top of the twos.
The shape of the first ribbon changed several times over the years. Go back and look at the pictures of the different dates.
I suspect that the Engravers moved it around to accommodate the width of the date. A date with two skinny 1’s (1913-1919 and again in 1921) took up less width than a date with a single 1.
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.
@BUFFNIXX said:
Any comments on this 1925 buffalo nickel?????
Still looking for more counterfeits of other dates struck from this reverse die. Note the oval "O" in "oF" and the very bold "P" in "PLURIBUS." Should be easy to spot even on dateless Buffalos.
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.
@jesbroken said:
Did anyone feel the word Five on the reverse to be somewhat shorter than most Buffalo Nickels. Here is a comparison I borrowed from CoinFacts of a 1924, 1925, and 1926 "Five" compared to the op's coin. They all appear to be a little taller compared to the one, but that may just be me. I have truly enjoyed this discussion, btw.
Jim
Everything this nickel displays screams counterfeit to me, especially the lettering everywhere on that Buff. Jim, you and I look at Buffs for hours and days on end. There’s no question in my mind it’s a counterfeit. Not even a question.
Happy hunting
Don't know why I didn't notice it before. Look how high the "V" is on the counterfeit 1925.
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
@jesbroken said:
Did anyone feel the word Five on the reverse to be somewhat shorter than most Buffalo Nickels. Here is a comparison I borrowed from CoinFacts of a 1924, 1925, and 1926 "Five" compared to the op's coin. They all appear to be a little taller compared to the one, but that may just be me. I have truly enjoyed this discussion, btw.
Jim
Everything this nickel displays screams counterfeit to me, especially the lettering everywhere on that Buff. Jim, you and I look at Buffs for hours and days on end. There’s no question in my mind it’s a counterfeit. Not even a question.
Happy hunting
Don't know why I didn't notice it before. Look how high the "V" is on the counterfeit 1925.
Pete
Dead give away there and many others, Pete.
The bitterness of "Poor Quality" is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
@jesbroken said:
Are there any counterfeit 1913 S Buffs out there? If so, what are some telltale markings?
Jim
If you mean 1913-S Type 2, there are probably more fakes than real coins.
The altered coins have added mintmarks, Know and study the shape of the genuine.......which was used on the 1909-S V.D.B. Cents.
Then there is the "Embossd Mintmarks", which is pressed into the coin by drilling a hole in the edge and forcing an S into the field. If you are thinking about buying one raw, ALWAYS check the rim for tooling marks.
Does anyone here know of a counterfeit? Let us know.
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
Since there are chineese counterfeit 1913-s type two coins made in the early “aughts” of this century there are some floating around. (aughts are from 2000 to 2009)
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Bump.
Anybody find a third example of this yet, or a different date counterfeit with the same reverse?
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.
Very interesting thread! It made me look closely at a small hoard I inherited recently. This 1935D struck me as odd, since most late date Buffalos in the group are in much better shape. Do you think it's one of these counterfeits, or just worn?
My thoughts on the OP's 1925 coin: significant strike doubling on obverse, and subsequent wear has created a visual anomaly that would appear as counterfeit when compared to similar specimens of that year. It's genuine, with significant strike doubling that has worn through on date, and other areas of concern.
Many of the 1935-D 5c were very poorly made from dies that were used far past the normal life of the dies. This coin COULD be one of those from an extremely late stage of the dies. It's one of the worst examples of this date I've seen if genuine.
@PocketArt said:
My thoughts on the OP's 1925 coin: significant strike doubling on obverse, and subsequent wear has created a visual anomaly that would appear as counterfeit when compared to similar specimens of that year. It's genuine, with significant strike doubling that has worn through on date, and other areas of concern.
I have the second piece known in hand for study. It is counterfeit. Look at the "O" in "OF" and the motto E PLURIBUS UNUM.
TD
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.
@koynekwest said:
Many of the 1935-D 5c were very poorly made from dies that were used far past the normal life of the dies. This coin COULD be one of those from an extremely late stage of the dies. It's one of the worst examples of this date I've seen if genuine.
Agreed Ron. It is arguably the single toughest coin in the Buff Short Set to locate in 65 and above,
1934-D is also knocking at the door. Obverses on them are a terrible mess.
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
@PocketArt said:
My thoughts on the OP's 1925 coin: significant strike doubling on obverse, and subsequent wear has created a visual anomaly that would appear as counterfeit when compared to similar specimens of that year. It's genuine, with significant strike doubling that has worn through on date, and other areas of concern.
I have the second piece known in hand for study. It is counterfeit. Look at the "O" in "OF" and the motto E PLURIBUS UNUM.
TD
What is the specific gravity on this particular coin? Is the composition correct? Just curious if it is same in terms of weight/composition. If those are correct then I'd say chance of counterfeit has been significantly diminished. The obverse strike doubling...on a counterfeit? They can master a mint anomaly yet screw up the reverse? That's funny. So, no chance that the "O" and motto may have been heavily polished and re-engraved? Sure not a die variety?
Just trying to be devils advocate Tom- I know you are the expert; I don't want to turn down a chance of getting schooled, and learning more.
@PocketArt said:
My thoughts on the OP's 1925 coin: significant strike doubling on obverse, and subsequent wear has created a visual anomaly that would appear as counterfeit when compared to similar specimens of that year. It's genuine, with significant strike doubling that has worn through on date, and other areas of concern.
I have the second piece known in hand for study. It is counterfeit. Look at the "O" in "OF" and the motto E PLURIBUS UNUM.
TD
What is the specific gravity on this particular coin? Is the composition correct? Just curious if it is same in terms of weight/composition. If those are correct then I'd say chance of counterfeit has been significantly diminished. The obverse strike doubling...on a counterfeit? They can master a mint anomaly yet screw up the reverse? That's funny. So, no chance that the "O" and motto may have been heavily polished and re-engraved? Sure not a die variety?
Just trying to be devils advocate Tom- I know you are the expert; I don't want to turn down a chance of getting schooled, and learning more.
I am making arrangements to have an X-ray analysis done, but if you think a specific gravity will help I will do that too.
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.
@PocketArt said:
My thoughts on the OP's 1925 coin: significant strike doubling on obverse, and subsequent wear has created a visual anomaly that would appear as counterfeit when compared to similar specimens of that year. It's genuine, with significant strike doubling that has worn through on date, and other areas of concern.
I have the second piece known in hand for study. It is counterfeit. Look at the "O" in "OF" and the motto E PLURIBUS UNUM.
TD
What is the specific gravity on this particular coin? Is the composition correct? Just curious if it is same in terms of weight/composition. If those are correct then I'd say chance of counterfeit has been significantly diminished. The obverse strike doubling...on a counterfeit? They can master a mint anomaly yet screw up the reverse? That's funny. So, no chance that the "O" and motto may have been heavily polished and re-engraved? Sure not a die variety?
Just trying to be devils advocate Tom- I know you are the expert; I don't want to turn down a chance of getting schooled, and learning more.
I am making arrangements to have an X-ray analysis done, but if you think a specific gravity will help I will do that too.
Thank you Tom. I'll have to check what the specific gravity should be with genuine nickels- might just check a batch later this evening. Appreciate all you do!
Edit to Add Specific Gravity Results on Buffalo Nickels:
According to an old coin talk thread, specific gravity for buffalo nickels should be close to 8.92
I weighed a batch of 5 buffalo nickels- VF-XF and my results were 8.82 averaged.
@carabonnair said:
Very interesting thread! It made me look closely at a small hoard I inherited recently. This 1935D struck me as odd, since most late date Buffalos in the group are in much better shape. Do you think it's one of these counterfeits, or just worn?
I think this is a real buff.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Needless to say I am intrigued by this topic. Thanks to all for your thoughts and follow up. More to remember when I flip thru 2x2's at the next coin show. Peace Roy
I sent my 1913 S T2 into PCGS to have listed as counterfeit and came back unable to authenticate. I still believe it to be counterfeit. The mintmark does not look like over 10 I compared to until I did find a mintmark that was quite similar on NGC variety plus coin. But after studying many mm's I found a couple that were similar. My coin is weakly struck or purely counterfeit. I am beginning to think more towards counterfeit than mm added. Here are some pics to compare. There are 2 other mm's with the hump on the ctrright of the S which would be odd for an added mm.
Hope you may shed some light on this coin.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
Koinicker wins the cigar! The X-ray tests on the 1925 nickel (Specimen 2) are in, thanks to Asheland on here who had the work done by Tom Biddlecome of Carolina Coins. Thanks to you both.
Two tests were done, one on each side. I will give high/low/average.
Copper 66.51/66.04/66.275
Nickel 19.46/17.96/18.71
Zinc 15.28/14.06/14.67
Manganese 0.130/0.112/0.121
Cobalt 0.089/0.074/0.0815
Iron 0.073/0.051/0.062
In other words, German Silver, as Koinicker said. I really thought that the color looked like normal copper-nickel. Did not see that yellowish cast so often seen on German Silver.
Cobalt is commonly found as a trace element with both copper and nickel so that won't be any help in determining the source of the metals. Will look into the Manganese and Iron but don't expect to find anything useful.
Would still love to see a third specimen with this reverse die, whether dated 1925 like this coin or anything else.
Will do an S.G. when I get the coin back, but don't expect it to contradict the X-ray test.
TD
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.
@CaptHenway said:
Koinicker wins the cigar! The X-ray tests on the 1925 nickel (Specimen 2) are in, thanks to Asheland on here who had the work done by Tom Biddlecome of Carolina Coins. Thanks to you both.
Two tests were done, one on each side. I will give high/low/average.
Copper 66.51/66.04/66.275
Nickel 19.46/17.96/18.71
Zinc 15.28/14.06/14.67
Manganese 0.130/0.112/0.121
Cobalt 0.089/0.074/0.0815
Iron 0.073/0.051/0.062
In other words, German Silver, as Koinicker said. I really thought that the color looked like normal copper-nickel. Did not see that yellowish cast so often seen on German Silver.
Cobalt is commonly found as a trace element with both copper and nickel so that won't be any help in determining the source of the metals. Will look into the Manganese and Iron but don't expect to find anything useful.
Would still love to see a third specimen with this reverse die, whether dated 1925 like this coin or anything else.
Will do an S.G. when I get the coin back, but don't expect it to contradict the X-ray test.
TD
Thanks for the analysis Tom! Interesting to note that German silver was consistently used on all known struck counterfeit five-cent nickels (except for Henning) since the first counterfeit five-cent nickels were made in 1869!
@koynekwest said:
Don't forget about the EPU on the reverse. Everything about it is all wrong.
Here is is, Ron. Including the strange "O" from "OF".
Pete
I am giving up trying to find any more specimens of this counterfeit with the lopsided O in OF. Still only know of two. Will finish up an article and submit it for publication, but if anybody out there does have another counterfeit with this lopsided nickel, with any date, please let me know ASAP.
TD
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.
Comments
and now the obverse
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Concerning the "1922" coin, based on the available pictures, I note the following:
As previously mentioned, from 1920 to 1925 the left cord hung in a more-vertical position. Starting in 1926 the cord meandered farther to the left, ending up under the last digit in the date.
The "1922" coin appears to exhibit the 1926 version, which did not yet exist in 1922.
The second "2" in the date is not exactly like the first "2".
So my conclusion is that the "1922" coin has an altered date, made from a 1928. A closer examination would be required to tell for sure, however.
.
I noticed that wider and thinner base on the second "2" when I looked at it years ago. I did not notice the position of the ribbon or the differences at the top of the twos.
The shape of the first ribbon changed several times over the years. Go back and look at the pictures of the different dates.
I suspect that the Engravers moved it around to accommodate the width of the date. A date with two skinny 1’s (1913-1919 and again in 1921) took up less width than a date with a single 1.
Still looking for more counterfeits of other dates struck from this reverse die. Note the oval "O" in "oF" and the very bold "P" in "PLURIBUS." Should be easy to spot even on dateless Buffalos.
Don't know why I didn't notice it before. Look how high the "V" is on the counterfeit 1925.
Pete
Dead give away there and many others, Pete.
Are there any counterfeit 1913 S Buffs out there? If so, what are some telltale markings?
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
If you mean 1913-S Type 2, there are probably more fakes than real coins.
The altered coins have added mintmarks, Know and study the shape of the genuine.......which was used on the 1909-S V.D.B. Cents.
Then there is the "Embossd Mintmarks", which is pressed into the coin by drilling a hole in the edge and forcing an S into the field. If you are thinking about buying one raw, ALWAYS check the rim for tooling marks.
Does anyone here know of a counterfeit? Let us know.
Pete
Since there are chineese counterfeit 1913-s type two coins made in the early “aughts” of this century there are some floating around. (aughts are from 2000 to 2009)
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I figured that.
Pete
Bump.
Anybody find a third example of this yet, or a different date counterfeit with the same reverse?
Right beside ya, Tom.
Pete
The Indian looks more sad than angry: definitely a fake.
Very interesting thread! It made me look closely at a small hoard I inherited recently. This 1935D struck me as odd, since most late date Buffalos in the group are in much better shape. Do you think it's one of these counterfeits, or just worn?
Pacific Northwest Numismatic Association
Somebody may have beat you to it by scratching an X through the reverse. It looks counterfeit to me.
A full 4 figure date with a VG horn? Very mushy. Strange piece of metal obliterating the "M" in UNUM.
It has that "look".
Pete
My thoughts on the OP's 1925 coin: significant strike doubling on obverse, and subsequent wear has created a visual anomaly that would appear as counterfeit when compared to similar specimens of that year. It's genuine, with significant strike doubling that has worn through on date, and other areas of concern.
Many of the 1935-D 5c were very poorly made from dies that were used far past the normal life of the dies. This coin COULD be one of those from an extremely late stage of the dies. It's one of the worst examples of this date I've seen if genuine.
I have the second piece known in hand for study. It is counterfeit. Look at the "O" in "OF" and the motto E PLURIBUS UNUM.
TD
Agreed Ron. It is arguably the single toughest coin in the Buff Short Set to locate in 65 and above,
1934-D is also knocking at the door. Obverses on them are a terrible mess.
Pete
What is the specific gravity on this particular coin? Is the composition correct? Just curious if it is same in terms of weight/composition. If those are correct then I'd say chance of counterfeit has been significantly diminished. The obverse strike doubling...on a counterfeit? They can master a mint anomaly yet screw up the reverse? That's funny. So, no chance that the "O" and motto may have been heavily polished and re-engraved? Sure not a die variety?
Just trying to be devils advocate Tom- I know you are the expert; I don't want to turn down a chance of getting schooled, and learning more.
So true, Pete-both of those dates can look like the worst of the branch Mint stuff from the mid twenties.
Perhaps if the '35-D shown above was weighed we could better determine if it's real.
I am making arrangements to have an X-ray analysis done, but if you think a specific gravity will help I will do that too.
Thank you Tom. I'll have to check what the specific gravity should be with genuine nickels- might just check a batch later this evening. Appreciate all you do!
Edit to Add Specific Gravity Results on Buffalo Nickels:
According to an old coin talk thread, specific gravity for buffalo nickels should be close to 8.92
I weighed a batch of 5 buffalo nickels- VF-XF and my results were 8.82 averaged.
Composition .750 copper, .250 nickel.
To me the most significant pickup point on this 1925 false piece is the tilted 9 in the date. Does not exist for a legit
1925 nickel
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I think this is a real buff.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Needless to say I am intrigued by this topic. Thanks to all for your thoughts and follow up. More to remember when I flip thru 2x2's at the next coin show. Peace Roy
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun, MichaelDixon, NickPatton, ProfLiz, Twobitcollector,Jesbroken oih82w8, DCW
I sent my 1913 S T2 into PCGS to have listed as counterfeit and came back unable to authenticate. I still believe it to be counterfeit. The mintmark does not look like over 10 I compared to until I did find a mintmark that was quite similar on NGC variety plus coin. But after studying many mm's I found a couple that were similar. My coin is weakly struck or purely counterfeit. I am beginning to think more towards counterfeit than mm added. Here are some pics to compare. There are 2 other mm's with the hump on the ctrright of the S which would be odd for an added mm.
Hope you may shed some light on this coin.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
Koinicker wins the cigar! The X-ray tests on the 1925 nickel (Specimen 2) are in, thanks to Asheland on here who had the work done by Tom Biddlecome of Carolina Coins. Thanks to you both.
Two tests were done, one on each side. I will give high/low/average.
Copper 66.51/66.04/66.275
Nickel 19.46/17.96/18.71
Zinc 15.28/14.06/14.67
Manganese 0.130/0.112/0.121
Cobalt 0.089/0.074/0.0815
Iron 0.073/0.051/0.062
In other words, German Silver, as Koinicker said. I really thought that the color looked like normal copper-nickel. Did not see that yellowish cast so often seen on German Silver.
Cobalt is commonly found as a trace element with both copper and nickel so that won't be any help in determining the source of the metals. Will look into the Manganese and Iron but don't expect to find anything useful.
Would still love to see a third specimen with this reverse die, whether dated 1925 like this coin or anything else.
Will do an S.G. when I get the coin back, but don't expect it to contradict the X-ray test.
TD
So is a 1925 Buffalo with a doubled profile a counterfeit? The O on the reverse looks like the misshaped o
Thanks for the analysis Tom! Interesting to note that German silver was consistently used on all known struck counterfeit five-cent nickels (except for Henning) since the first counterfeit five-cent nickels were made in 1869!
it definatly looks like someone was practicing on how to make a better looking fake one and the practice one got into circulation
I am giving up trying to find any more specimens of this counterfeit with the lopsided O in OF. Still only know of two. Will finish up an article and submit it for publication, but if anybody out there does have another counterfeit with this lopsided nickel, with any date, please let me know ASAP.
TD