Selective die polished error premium?
in2Coins
Posts: 365 ✭✭✭✭✭
Question, why is the premium on 3 1/2 legs Buff error is so much due to die polish?
For example, the below 51 proof is also showing die polished making the nose look like detached but not considered error and no premium even though there are hardly any others that look similar? And, mintage is also low!
Please explain the reasoning behind it if you can.....
0
Comments
Cuz Leprosy Franklin isn't as cute as a 3 legged buffalo.
Other examples could include 1891 CC Spitting Eagle (just a small die chip) other larger die chips in the series. Scarface Morgan die break, there are other very large cracks & breaks on Morgan's. The Peace moustache die break would be less popular if it wasn't for perfect placement.
Then if you can get a cute name to stick you might be able to market it for a premium.
How does the hair detail look on this coin? Full pics please of both sides. It could be a weak strike.
Are there a lot of Proof Franklin with deviated septum? I noticed this effect of die clash examples, and repaired examples, but not of proofs.
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
Good question.
1. Popular series
2. Marketing
3. Cool, gimmicky name caught on early with even non-collectors
4. See above 3 reasons.
Not throwing shade on 3 Leggers.
Just my thoughts.
I would think since proof dies were polished regularly some loss of low-lying detail is expected. As for the pictured coin, I would actually have less interest in it due to the missing detail compared to one struck with fresh dies.
There is a VAM of 1878 Morgan which shows a similar affect.
Collector, occasional seller
I don’t think it’s common. Looked at a lot of them and this coin seems to be the worst one.
Thanks! Exactly my point. If you did not know about the 3 1/2 leg buff error, would you be interested if what you’re looking for is detail?
I don’t think Leprosy nose Franklin would be a catchy name!
Maybe Nose Bleed Ike or Can’t Smell Ike....lol. It needs a catchy name!!!
Happy New Year to all!
You forgot #5. See #4
It is a good and important question and within it is the key to understanding value.
As a young collector I wondered why some foreign coins with tiny mintages compared to US coins did not have the same value.
I learned a critical lesson: value = supply + demand.
As has been mentioned, the 3 legged buffalo nickels (or also the 3 1/2 legged, both of which are due to die polishing) are valuable because they are popular. The supply is smaller than the demand.
By the way, the same question could be asked about doubled dies. There are ones that are rarer than the 1955, but they are not as popular.
Broken Beak Ben
In a proof I'd want as much detail as possible. Circulation strikes are a different animal and I think abraded dies are pretty cool. The 3 1/2 leg varieties are pushing it a little though, IMO, most look like 4 legs to me.
Collector, occasional seller
True as far as wanting to have as much detail as possible on proof coins reason why you pay a little more vs business strikes due to the detail and care of the die. But, wouldn’t it be more valuable if there is error on proof coins since you expect perfection per se? I think it’s all about marketing.
If I have to pick between MS 60 1936 3 1/2 legged Buff vs MS60 1916 D Merc dime, I would pick the dime 10 out 10. I like the Buff series though.
My assumption is that die polish is not an "error" as such - it is poor die preparation. It is a lower quality product, which on proof coins might be a drawback.
I believe that the 3 legged (and 3 1/2 legged) buffalos are actually die varieties, not errors. In any case, they caught the imagination of the coin buying public, so they are worth a premium. Supply vs demand.
The 3 1/2 leg Buffalo nickel was apparently heavily promoted at the time of its issue and, most importantly, made it into price guides and albums. Once this was done many/most collectors followed along like sheep and had to have one. I was notably not one of the sheep in regards to this issue. From the very start of my collecting in 1961 I saw no reason for it to be included in the set and never had any interest in owning one. My negative opinion of this "variety" or "error" has never changed.