@koynekwest said:
I think the OP has enough knowledge about this type of thing to tell if it's a proof or not. As I said-the edge will make it or break it.
Here are the photos of the edge which I requested and got last night.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
@crazyhounddog said:
This is a proof. Look at the lettering on Liberty and compare it to the coin the OP is showing. Lettering should be bold and blocky.
I rest my case.
TO CRAZYHOUNDDDOG: You cannot really compare the word LIBERTY on a 1915 to a 1916 because the design was
significantly changed in 1916. The LIBERTY was completely changed making it sharper and clearer all the way around.
The difference we see between your two coins is mostly the difference in the sharp redesign of the 1916. The 1916 is
completely stronger by the fact that it was redesigned.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Now having rethought this I think that though the coin is super nice it makes me feel that the reason it is not in
someones proof holder is because the submitter (may multiple submitters) tried and failed.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
@BUFFNIXX said:
Now having rethought this I think that though the coin is super nice it makes me feel that the reason it is not in
someones proof holder is because the submitter (may multiple submitters) tried and failed.
Why didn’t you think that initially?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Just a question since I have no experience with the older proofs. Do people take a nice PQ MS coin and polish the rim to make it appear square and reflective like a Proof?
The flat reflective rim with the touch of bevel at the edges makes me wonder.
@crazyhounddog said:
This is a proof. Look at the lettering on Liberty and compare it to the coin the OP is showing. Lettering should be bold and blocky.
I rest my case.
TO CRAZYHOUNDDDOG: You cannot really compare the word LIBERTY on a 1915 to a 1916 because the design was
significantly changed in 1916. The LIBERTY was completely changed making it sharper and clearer all the way around.
The difference we see between your two coins is mostly the difference in the sharp redesign of the 1916. The 1916 is
completely stronger by the fact that it was redesigned.
Nope. All proof coin letterings are bold, sharp and blocky, always. The coin you’re showing doesn’t make the cut, period.
The bitterness of "Poor Quality" is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
@crazyhounddog said:
This is a proof. Look at the lettering on Liberty and compare it to the coin the OP is showing. Lettering should be bold and blocky.
I rest my case.
TO CRAZYHOUNDDDOG: You cannot really compare the word LIBERTY on a 1915 to a 1916 because the design was
significantly changed in 1916. The LIBERTY was completely changed making it sharper and clearer all the way around.
The difference we see between your two coins is mostly the difference in the sharp redesign of the 1916. The 1916 is
completely stronger by the fact that it was redesigned.
Nope. All proof coin letterings are bold, sharp and blocky, always. The coin you’re showing doesn’t make the cut, period.
@crazyhounddog said:
This is a proof. Look at the lettering on Liberty and compare it to the coin the OP is showing. Lettering should be bold and blocky.
I rest my case.
TO CRAZYHOUNDDDOG: You cannot really compare the word LIBERTY on a 1915 to a 1916 because the design was
significantly changed in 1916. The LIBERTY was completely changed making it sharper and clearer all the way around.
The difference we see between your two coins is mostly the difference in the sharp redesign of the 1916. The 1916 is
completely stronger by the fact that it was redesigned.
Nope. All proof coin letterings are bold, sharp and blocky, always. The coin you’re showing doesn’t make the cut, period.
While I’ve stated that I believe the subject coin to be a business strike, it’s too general and incorrect to declare “All proof coin letterings are bold, sharp and blocky, always.” And for the reason mentioned by the OP, it would have been a fairer comparison, had a 1915 (instead of a 1916) Proof been used as an example.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
There are a whole lot of knowledgeable collectors in this forum. The combined years of collecting are astronomical.
Yet a lowly (Denomination Wise) Buffalo Nickel evokes all this response. Buffs are no doubt a very tough series!
The only comment that I could make about the coin is that the knot is not struck up enough. Talk about confusing apples and oranges! I hesitated to comment definitively because I was unsure.
The coin is a business strike. The edge puts it over.
This has been a very stimulating thread, for sure.
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
@Batman23 said:
Just a question since I have no experience with the older proofs. Do people take a nice PQ MS coin and polish the rim to make it appear square and reflective like a Proof?
The flat reflective rim with the touch of bevel at the edges makes me wonder.
I don't think that would be possible. To remove the beveling you would have to diminish the diameter of the coin, even if just slightly. In most cases the slight inferiority of the strike gives it away. But it's all these things combined that tell the tale.
Although different dates and NOT my series, I thought it should be mentioned that the OP coin has better feather detail as well as some of the facial features than does the 1916 proof shown.
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
I believe the feather detail may have been changed when the die was reworked in 1916. The hair detail directly above the knot is stronger on the proofs than it is on the coin shown by the OP. The main difference, tho, is the slightly deficient detail on the bison, especially near the bottom of the diagonal hairline that runs from the shoulder to the top of the left front leg.
@crazyhounddog said:
This is a proof. Look at the lettering on Liberty and compare it to the coin the OP is showing. Lettering should be bold and blocky.
I rest my case.
TO CRAZYHOUNDDDOG: You cannot really compare the word LIBERTY on a 1915 to a 1916 because the design was
significantly changed in 1916. The LIBERTY was completely changed making it sharper and clearer all the way around.
The difference we see between your two coins is mostly the difference in the sharp redesign of the 1916. The 1916 is
completely stronger by the fact that it was redesigned.
Nope. All proof coin letterings are bold, sharp and blocky, always. The coin you’re showing doesn’t make the cut, period.
While I’ve stated that I believe the subject coin to be a business strike, it’s too general and incorrect to declare “All proof coin letterings are bold, sharp and blocky, always.” And for the reason mentioned by the OP, it would have been a fairer comparison, had a 1915 (instead of a 1916) Proof been used as an example.
Post up a 1915 proof that has squished out lettering like the OP is showing. Let me help you along with that. It doesn’t exist. Many, many details are lacking with the OP’s 15 business strike. Anyone can go straight to coin facts and compare real matte proofs to the one the OP is showing. You can skip the outside off the rim. It’s not even close in my book.
Yes, all matte proof coins lettering is bold, sharp and blocky😊
The bitterness of "Poor Quality" is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
I don't know how you'd give an accurate Proof designation on a 1915 Buffalo from a picture. A guess is the best you could do! The LIBERTY can be blocky on the 1915, but will frequently look like the OP's. The rims are a little off, but that's not definitive either. The worst thing about the OP's coin are the surfaces, which could be why it's not holdered. Just my slightly educated guess... IDFK
The worst thing in my opinion is the slightly deficient strike. That and those beveled edges. Coins showing all three sides of the coin can indeed be verified via high quality images IMO.
@crazyhounddog said:
This is a proof. Look at the lettering on Liberty and compare it to the coin the OP is showing. Lettering should be bold and blocky.
I rest my case.
TO CRAZYHOUNDDDOG: You cannot really compare the word LIBERTY on a 1915 to a 1916 because the design was
significantly changed in 1916. The LIBERTY was completely changed making it sharper and clearer all the way around.
The difference we see between your two coins is mostly the difference in the sharp redesign of the 1916. The 1916 is
completely stronger by the fact that it was redesigned.
Nope. All proof coin letterings are bold, sharp and blocky, always. The coin you’re showing doesn’t make the cut, period.
Posting a single 1915 example or even multiple ones wouldn’t seal a case, when the comment was > @crazyhounddog said:
@crazyhounddog said:
This is a proof. Look at the lettering on Liberty and compare it to the coin the OP is showing. Lettering should be bold and blocky.
I rest my case.
TO CRAZYHOUNDDDOG: You cannot really compare the word LIBERTY on a 1915 to a 1916 because the design was
significantly changed in 1916. The LIBERTY was completely changed making it sharper and clearer all the way around.
The difference we see between your two coins is mostly the difference in the sharp redesign of the 1916. The 1916 is
completely stronger by the fact that it was redesigned.
Nope. All proof coin letterings are bold, sharp and blocky, always. The coin you’re showing doesn’t make the cut, period.
While I’ve stated that I believe the subject coin to be a business strike, it’s too general and incorrect to declare “All proof coin letterings are bold, sharp and blocky, always.” And for the reason mentioned by the OP, it would have been a fairer comparison, had a 1915 (instead of a 1916) Proof been used as an example.
Post up a 1915 proof that has squished out lettering like the OP is showing. Let me help you along with that. It doesn’t exist. Many, many details are lacking with the OP’s 15 business strike. Anyone can go straight to coin facts and compare real matte proofs to the one the OP is showing. You can skip the outside off the rim. It’s not even close in my book.
Yes, all matte proof coins lettering is bold, sharp and blocky😊
I already went to CoinFacts and posted a link, earlier in this thread, to illustrate the differences in strike detail, between the subject coin and graded Proofs. However, over the years, I’ve seen a number of (PCGS and NGC) Proofs that did not match your all-encompassing description. It’s OK if you don’t believe me.
Just about anytime someone uses words such as “all”, “always”, “never”, they’re apt to be wrong. Notice, I didn’t say they’re “always” wrong.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Here’s “Liberty” off the coinfacts 1915 business strike, ms68 and 2,ms67+. and the OP specimen. There’s a lot of variations and probably the nature of this coin makes calls off photos difficult. Seems the best eyes here say business strike.
It’s not at all impossible to tell from photos. Consider that a good chunk of those saying that it’s not a proof have cherry picked raw proofs listed as ms.
I agree, and while I appreciate KK's pictures, I do not agree about the bit about the buffalo tail and in particular its tuft definition. It seems there is definitely variability in strike and die.
Another example is that the forequarter hair on the OP is better defined as are feather details. The haunches or lower leg show differences as well with KK's coin a bit better in some regards and the OP in others. In addition, there are lighting differences between the photos.
My point is that the certainty with which some have replied seems a bit precipitous - it would be a bit nicer if statements were prefaced with "IMO" or "IMHO" or some such....
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
In your OP, you mentioned the die marker (die crack) on Diamond's back. Is this what you are referring to?
Here is Variety vista's "Low Relief " for the Proofs
Here is the OP's
"Jesus died for you and for me, Thank you,Jesus"!!!
--- If it should happen I die and leave this world and you want to remember me. Please only remember my opening Sig Line.
That’s a scratch.
It’s not too hard for me to believe that the same seller who has a scratched, repaired coin with no mention of it would be fine selling a misrepresented ms coin as proof for straight graded money. He’s clearly fishing. “IMO”
How are statements bombastic when there are only 2 outcomes? If people aren’t capable of filtering fact from opinion then a free message board isn’t the place to get information.
There IS a correct answer here. Just because some disagree with it doesn’t make it wrong.
@clarkbar04 said:
By that logic should pcgs also include “imo” on the slab insert?
Hopefully, it’s understood that posts, here and grades assigned by grading companies are opinions. However, some opinions are far more informed than others.
That said, I try to remember to state my opinions as such, rather than as fact. I often use words such as “think”, “believe”, “appears”, “looks” and so on. There are almost certainly times when I forget, though. And admittedly, there are occasions in which I call out others who state opinions as indisputable facts.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
There are Buff proofs that are not fully struck. This is very rare and minor on the matte proofs but is found on the brilliant proofs of 1936-1937. In fact a MAJORITY of the 1937 issue will not show complete detailing above the knot on the obverse.
Comments
This is a proof. Look at the lettering on Liberty and compare it to the coin the OP is showing. Lettering should be bold and blocky.
I rest my case.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6027503/uploads/editor/tx/8ctillfrpaqd.jpg
Here are the photos of the edge which I requested and got last night.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Proof it is proof? Those edges look like it.
TO CRAZYHOUNDDDOG: You cannot really compare the word LIBERTY on a 1915 to a 1916 because the design was
significantly changed in 1916. The LIBERTY was completely changed making it sharper and clearer all the way around.
The difference we see between your two coins is mostly the difference in the sharp redesign of the 1916. The 1916 is
completely stronger by the fact that it was redesigned.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Lets concentrate on the edge first.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I see beveling where the edge joins the rim, therefore it isn't a proof.
Now having rethought this I think that though the coin is super nice it makes me feel that the reason it is not in
someones proof holder is because the submitter (may multiple submitters) tried and failed.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Why didn’t you think that initially?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Just a question since I have no experience with the older proofs. Do people take a nice PQ MS coin and polish the rim to make it appear square and reflective like a Proof?
The flat reflective rim with the touch of bevel at the edges makes me wonder.
Nope. All proof coin letterings are bold, sharp and blocky, always. The coin you’re showing doesn’t make the cut, period.
Post up a 15 to seal your case!
While I’ve stated that I believe the subject coin to be a business strike, it’s too general and incorrect to declare “All proof coin letterings are bold, sharp and blocky, always.” And for the reason mentioned by the OP, it would have been a fairer comparison, had a 1915 (instead of a 1916) Proof been used as an example.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
There are a whole lot of knowledgeable collectors in this forum. The combined years of collecting are astronomical.
Yet a lowly (Denomination Wise) Buffalo Nickel evokes all this response. Buffs are no doubt a very tough series!
The only comment that I could make about the coin is that the knot is not struck up enough. Talk about confusing apples and oranges! I hesitated to comment definitively because I was unsure.
The coin is a business strike. The edge puts it over.
This has been a very stimulating thread, for sure.
Pete
I don't think that would be possible. To remove the beveling you would have to diminish the diameter of the coin, even if just slightly. In most cases the slight inferiority of the strike gives it away. But it's all these things combined that tell the tale.
Although different dates and NOT my series, I thought it should be mentioned that the OP coin has better feather detail as well as some of the facial features than does the 1916 proof shown.
Well, just Love coins, period.
I believe the feather detail may have been changed when the die was reworked in 1916. The hair detail directly above the knot is stronger on the proofs than it is on the coin shown by the OP. The main difference, tho, is the slightly deficient detail on the bison, especially near the bottom of the diagonal hairline that runs from the shoulder to the top of the left front leg.
Compare the two reverse images of the coin being discussed and my 1915 MP. Note how the bison's overall hair detail is sharper in the second image.
Post up a 1915 proof that has squished out lettering like the OP is showing. Let me help you along with that. It doesn’t exist. Many, many details are lacking with the OP’s 15 business strike. Anyone can go straight to coin facts and compare real matte proofs to the one the OP is showing. You can skip the outside off the rim. It’s not even close in my book.
Yes, all matte proof coins lettering is bold, sharp and blocky😊
I don't know how you'd give an accurate Proof designation on a 1915 Buffalo from a picture. A guess is the best you could do! The LIBERTY can be blocky on the 1915, but will frequently look like the OP's. The rims are a little off, but that's not definitive either. The worst thing about the OP's coin are the surfaces, which could be why it's not holdered. Just my slightly educated guess... IDFK
The worst thing in my opinion is the slightly deficient strike. That and those beveled edges. Coins showing all three sides of the coin can indeed be verified via high quality images IMO.
Posting a single 1915 example or even multiple ones wouldn’t seal a case, when the comment was > @crazyhounddog said:
I already went to CoinFacts and posted a link, earlier in this thread, to illustrate the differences in strike detail, between the subject coin and graded Proofs. However, over the years, I’ve seen a number of (PCGS and NGC) Proofs that did not match your all-encompassing description. It’s OK if you don’t believe me.
Just about anytime someone uses words such as “all”, “always”, “never”, they’re apt to be wrong. Notice, I didn’t say they’re “always” wrong.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Almost an impossible call off pictures. Really an in hand graders call.
Here’s “Liberty” off the coinfacts 1915 business strike, ms68 and 2,ms67+. and the OP specimen. There’s a lot of variations and probably the nature of this coin makes calls off photos difficult. Seems the best eyes here say business strike.
It’s not at all impossible to tell from photos. Consider that a good chunk of those saying that it’s not a proof have cherry picked raw proofs listed as ms.
I agree, and while I appreciate KK's pictures, I do not agree about the bit about the buffalo tail and in particular its tuft definition. It seems there is definitely variability in strike and die.
Another example is that the forequarter hair on the OP is better defined as are feather details. The haunches or lower leg show differences as well with KK's coin a bit better in some regards and the OP in others. In addition, there are lighting differences between the photos.
My point is that the certainty with which some have replied seems a bit precipitous - it would be a bit nicer if statements were prefaced with "IMO" or "IMHO" or some such....
Well, just Love coins, period.
By that logic should pcgs also include “imo” on the slab insert?
In your OP, you mentioned the die marker (die crack) on Diamond's back. Is this what you are referring to?
Here is Variety vista's "Low Relief " for the Proofs
Here is the OP's
"Jesus died for you and for me, Thank you,Jesus"!!!
--- If it should happen I die and leave this world and you want to remember me. Please only remember my opening Sig Line.That’s a scratch.
It’s not too hard for me to believe that the same seller who has a scratched, repaired coin with no mention of it would be fine selling a misrepresented ms coin as proof for straight graded money. He’s clearly fishing. “IMO”
We were NOT talking about PCGS but rather peoples' bombastic statements, Sir.
Well, just Love coins, period.
How are statements bombastic when there are only 2 outcomes? If people aren’t capable of filtering fact from opinion then a free message board isn’t the place to get information.
There IS a correct answer here. Just because some disagree with it doesn’t make it wrong.
Doesn't quite have "the look" for me, despite having die markers people have pointed out. Not as sharply detailed as it should be.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Hopefully, it’s understood that posts, here and grades assigned by grading companies are opinions. However, some opinions are far more informed than others.
That said, I try to remember to state my opinions as such, rather than as fact. I often use words such as “think”, “believe”, “appears”, “looks” and so on. There are almost certainly times when I forget, though. And admittedly, there are occasions in which I call out others who state opinions as indisputable facts.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
There are Buff proofs that are not fully struck. This is very rare and minor on the matte proofs but is found on the brilliant proofs of 1936-1937. In fact a MAJORITY of the 1937 issue will not show complete detailing above the knot on the obverse.
Given another three pages of opinions and some here will be calling it a Proof!