Type 1 Buffalo dull appearance

JoeLewis

I've been looking at a ton of PCGS MS65 and MS66 Type 1 Buffalo nickels online, and many of them photograph in a way that makes the surface look very dull...like there's no luster. Is that just issues with photographing this type, or do many of these look like that in hand?

For example

stman

Amazing they made all these one sided coins. Heh

koynekwest

Here's a proof, also dull.

JoeLewis

That one looks fairly lustrous to me though. Obviously the matte proofs were made that way intentionally. I'm just trying to understand why some of the business strikes look this way (or maybe they don't, and it's just photo/lighting issues).

koynekwest

Some of the 1913 Var Buffs were struck from matte proof dies that were no longer suitable for the coining of the proofs. Some of these are very deceptive, especially if they are fully struck, like this one from my collection-

The edges are the key to distinguishing proofs. Tho the coin pictured is fully struck, a proof has slightly sharper details-compare with the proof pictured above.

airplanenut

Buffalos on the whole (not just Type 1 coins) have a pretty wide range of surface quality from very matte to highly lustrous. Beyond the fact that coins (especially from different mints and different years) may have had their blanks or dies prepared differently--something seen across many series--the buffalo nickel has a large design relative to the area of the coin, and the fields that do exist are slightly textured, which could make them less conducive to having the stronger lustre often seen on coins with large, flat fields, which lend themselves to lustre based on metal flow lines created when the coins are struck. I've also seen a lot of buffalos that have a rather gunmetal grey skin to them which seems to mute the surfaces some more. Certainly not exclusive to Type 1s, but I've seen it on a lot of Type 1s.

Lastly, to your question about photography, between some coins being at least somewhat lacklustre and the lustre that is present often requiring non-standard lighting angles compared to other coins, I wouldn't be surprised if some of what you're noticing is the result of photographers not quite getting the coin lit properly (or, if it's slabbed, not being able to get it lit properly without a large reflection from the slab ruining the image).

clarkbar04

I think some sellers just don’t take pics worth a darn. Using natural light on a cloudy day can yield photos showing a coin with no apparent luster. The one you posted doesn’t look like an EDS so would have good luster.

JoeLewis

Thanks for the info guys!

Jimnight

From your picture... it does look dull.

BuffaloIronTail

@Jimnight said:
From your picture... it does look dull.

If I showed you my picture, You'd see how really dull I am.

Pete

ricko

Buffalo nickels do seem (to me) to have a large percentage of dull - or flat - appearance... Which makes the 'special' coins stand out even more. I have just attributed it to the minting period, the several mints/quantity, and treatment of dies. Of course, we know when looking at coin pictures, the variables allow for the entire spectrum of images. Cheers, RickO

ChrisH821

They come both ways, unfortunately it's basically impossible to tell if a dull photo is the coin or the photography method.
If you are looking for type, be sure to check 1913-D as well.

MFeld

@JoeLewis said:
I've been looking at a ton of PCGS MS65 and MS66 Type 1 Buffalo nickels online, and many of them photograph in a way that makes the surface look very dull...like there's no luster. Is that just issues with photographing this type, or do many of these look like that in hand?

For example

Even lower grade uncirculated pieces don’t typically look anywhere near that dull - at least not in hand.

abcde12345

Dull yet never boring.