Wow. Completely forgot about this. Buffalo Nickel related
Vetter
Posts: 745 ✭✭✭✭✭
I just came across this old Numismatic News article from 1997. I completely forgot I was the 1st one to sell the new variety. If I remember correctly I had 3 or 4 of them. One from my inventory and a few more that I cherried before it was popular. The one I sold in Teletrade was the lowest grade I had.
Members I have done business with:
Silverman68, jfoot13, GAB, ricman, Smittys, scrapman1077, RyGuy, Connecticoin, Meltdown, VikingDude, Peaceman, Patches and more.
Silverman68, jfoot13, GAB, ricman, Smittys, scrapman1077, RyGuy, Connecticoin, Meltdown, VikingDude, Peaceman, Patches and more.
3
Comments
A few believe this isn't an overdate at all. I firmly believe that it is. Many experts, such as Bill Fivaz and Mike Ellis believe an overdate is exactly what it is. The late JT Stanton also believed that it is. Here's an image that should remove all doubt-
I cherried several right after it was publicized and traded one with the late Norm Talbert for a 1916 PR65 matte proof Buffalo back around 1998. I still have a couple, a Die #1 in Fine and a Die #6 in XF.
Here's the date on an MS-66, from:
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1914-3-5c/93924
They were relatively easy to cherry for the first 5 years or so after they were first reported. Here's a couple of articles announcing the discovery of the variety from "COIN WORLD."
There are several dies that show a very weak underdigit which complicates the legitimacy of the coin. There are three very nice dies that all show a plain "3" underneath the "4". This overdate was likely caused by the overdating of a working hub or by finishing an unfinished 1913 hub with one dated 1914. Effacement marks, to remove the "3" are seen on all dies, which, in my opinion reaffirms its status as a true overdate.
Where are the TPGSs on these now? For a while, they were talking about not certifying them anymore. I have one on my desk that I held off on sending in until the dust settled.
I think PCGS is attributing them but with a qualifier. The slab label reads 1914/(3). I don't know what they're doing ATS.
Seems to be a legitimate overdate... the confusion looks to be over what was under the 4... The die work on the previous numeral is confusing the determination. Obviously something was there and a 3 is the most likely candidate. Cheers, RickO
Possibly.
If you have to wonder about it ... it is not worth bothering with. You have to wonder about it.
If that ain't a "3" under the four I'd like someone to tell me what exactly it is. It's been proposed to be a die clash but that is certainly what it is NOT. It's certainly as convincing as the 42-D/41 dime. The confusion arises with the number of dies affected (and some of the more or less worthless dies that have been hyped for sale.) At the moment there have been 11 different dies identified but that's to be expected with the scenario that's been presented. The "3" is plainly visible on three of those dies. With all other 20th century overdates only a single working die is identified.
It has yet to be attributed as such by CONECA but that's because James Wiles wants to see a Mint state EDS example of one of those three good dies before he will. Does anyone here have such a coin? If so, contact Dr Wiles at Variety Vista.
I wrote and posted this article back in April of 2006. It is long winded, and dated, but it's what I came up with back then:
The story of the newly discovered (in 1996) 1914/3 Buffalo Nickel overdate to some might be viewed as a “Fairy
Tale”. The Fairy Tale moniker might be apt, in the sense that a percentage of seasoned collectors look at the
discovery and subsequent value of specimens with a certain amount of dis-belief.
If you view this overdate in comparison to the 1918/7-D, it is understandable that a perception like that would be
justified.
There is no question that the 1914 and 1918 overdates are what they are: Overdates. The two dates, however,
should not be considered identical in all respects. They are second-cousins, produced at different stages of the
die making process. Actually, in respect to blunders, the 1914/3 wins hands-down between the two!
Philly Phollies in 1913
From October till the end of the year, every year, the Mint was very busy producing dies for the remainder of the
current year, as well as the upcoming New Year.
Both were done, side by side, at the same time. That in itself is a recipe for mistakes.
The essential difference between the 1914/3 and the 1918/7 was that the Overdates were produced at different
stages in the die making process. The 1914/3 was by far the bigger mistake. A Working Hub was overdated.
Working Hubs are used to produce Working Dies. A lot of them! Working Dies were wrongly impressed with
the overdated Hub. The 1918/7 is unique in that only one Working Die was overdated. The 1914/3 happened
one step earlier in the die making process, the result being that multiple-overdated dies had been produced.
PULL THE DIE!....now what?
The horrendous mistake was eventually discovered after an undetermined amount of Working Dies had been
produced. It is estimated that 4 to 5, maybe 6, were created. The overdated Hub was pulled and destroyed, but
the damage had already been done. The die making process involves numerous steps, and is very labor intensive.
It cost The Mint real money in terms of wages, material, fuel for the annealing furnaces, and lost time to make
good a mistake.
The solution to this blunder was carried out in the following manner:
The overdated Working Dies were re-processed by grinding down and polishing away as much of the overdate as
was possible. Each die was identified, and re-worked to remove traces of the underlying “3” in the last numeral
of the date. That would re-coup the labor involved in their creation.
The Mint did this with varying amounts of success. Every Working Die that was discovered to have been
overdated subsequently received abrasion treatment to remove as much as possible of the underlying “3”. The
abraded and re-polished dies were then sent onward to the production stage (the actual coining of Nickels).
A natural chain of events ensued. Some of the re-conditioned dies were shipped by Express Messenger Service
to the Branch Mints in Denver and San Francisco for the coining of 1914 dated Buffalo Nickels, and some
remained in Philadelphia for coining there.
Their creation, circulation, and anonymity lasted until 1996........an astounding 82 years later!
The Medina Specimen is Discovered
Unlike this Overdates cousin, the 1918/7-D, which features a very prominent and untouched date, none will
show that bold feature. However, some very early die-state and high-grade specimens do exhibit an Overdate
that can be seen with the naked eye.
They all were coined and released into general circulation Nationwide with the above mentioned abrading. Given
the Buffalo Nickels’ often weak strike, coupled with the all too common clash marks and strike doubling, all
were dismissed as being afflicted with any number of the above maladies.
In 1996, Bill Fivaz (of Cherrypickers fame) sponsored a contest through CONECA in which a $100.00 prize
would be rewarded for finding a new and unknown overdated coin. R.A. Medina, from San Antonio, Texas
submitted the 1914-P Buffalo Nickel as his entry into the Contest.
It was graded Very Fine, struck from worn dies, and immediately caught the fancy of the Contest Sponsors. It
quickly made the rounds from one expert to the next, and was determined to be a new Overdate.
But......hesitant to officially confirm the coin, it was agreed to wait for someone to submit a higher-grade
specimen for analysis.
Several months later, another San Antoinian, Roger Alexander, submitted a higher-grade 1914-P coin struck
from an earlier die-state
After examining Alexander’s coin, the new Overdate was confirmed.
The 1914/3-P Buffalo Nickel began appearing in price guides, and was recognized by the major grading services
who would slab qualified specimens in a holder with the 1914/3 designation on it.
Now the Fun Begins
It was either still unknown, or was not thought to be the case to everyone involved in the Hobby from the outset
that the 1914/3 might have been manufactured from more than one die.
A specific and very rigid set of variables had to exist for any specimen to qualify for slabbing at that very early
stage.
I personally had one rejected by PCGS that I had sent with a local coin dealer in my area to The Long Beach
show in California. It was an EF specimen that I “cherried” shortly after hearing of the discovery.
PCGS told the dealer that while it looked like it possessed the diagnostic “notch” at the top and to the right of
the “4” in the date, it did not have all the diagnostics needed to holder the coin.
I began to understand why some individuals called this Overdate a “fairy tale”. I was so disillusioned and
disgusted with the pronouncement that I took the coin home and threw it into a box of spares and “junk” that I
had accumulated over the years.
That was then. This is now.
Today it probably would be holdered.........but for the life of me, I can no longer find the coin. I have absolutely
no idea what happened to it!
A 1914/3-S is Discovered
In 1997, Thomas K. Delorey sent a San Francisco minted coin “around the horn” that displayed diagnostics
hinting of the Overdate. The notch at the top of the “4” was there, but was considerably diminished compared to
the P Mint specimen.
It now became apparent that more than one die existed, meaning that a Working Hub was the culprit. There was
more than one Overdated die floating around.
The Final Piece of the Puzzle
1914/3-D
The challenge started by Bill Fivaz was actually ended by him late in 2000.
With the knowledge that multiple dies existed for this Overdate, and no specimen discovered from the Denver
Mint so far, Bill found an EF specimen that looked right. The Denver coin was less obvious and displayed fewer
details of an Overdate, but it, and a second specimen grading VF were declared as the Denver Overdate after
“making the rounds” to die specialists.
The Denver coins, both struck from the same Obverse die, sport a long die crack from the left rim through the
Indians head. It can easily be seen with a small amount of magnification.
This single Obverse die was paired with two different reverses during its production life. The “D” mintmark on
one specimen is very close to the “C” of Cents. It stands straight, with no tilt to it.
The second specimen displays a “D” which is tilted slightly to the left and is so close the “C” in “CENTS” that it
looks imbedded.
Summary
Six or more dies. Specimens from all three Mints. 82 years in hiding.
What’s not to like?
1) The Mint caught this one. To save production costs, each offending die was re-worked to remove traces of
the “3”. Higher grade specimens seldom seen by the general public, however, are reported to display a much
better Overdate than we regular folks can see. These “high-end” specimens make the rounds being sold and
traded between Dealers. “Bang for the Buck” being the operative words here, A good percentage of collectors
feel that the amount of Overdate present does not justify the cost of obtaining a specimen.
2) Should it be included in Albums? Yes, it should. It is what it is. It should only be included as an optional
slot though, for those of us who do not want to ante up the cost to display it.
3) This specimen hid so well for 82 years....and given the extra fragility of all the dates on the very early Buffalo
Nickels......is mostly lost to the ravages of wear and have been sent to “Dateless Heaven”........the mythical place
I envision as existing somewhere in Montana where the Buffs did roam at one time........their numbers so large
herds often covered an entire State!
Price and Pops
NGC Census Report
1914/3-P (FS-014-87)
129 graded specimens with the curve starting high at AG-VF, then dipping and again rising at 55-65 Three
specimens are at 65. 47 are in Mint State.
1914/3-D (FS-014.88)
2 graded specimens, both circulated, with grades of VF and XF-45. No Mint State specimens.
1914/3-S (FS-014.89)
34 graded specimens with 20 in Mint State. 4 are at 64.
I have no access to any other POP reports, perhaps a Forum Member would like to submit additional onfo in a
reply to this Story.
Pricing
Coin Universe (PCGS)
1914/3-P only
G-390, VG-650, EF-1350, AU-2400, MS-60, 3600, MS-63, 7000, MS-64-13000, MS-65-36000, MS-66-75000
Comments or corrections to this little Story are welcome.
Knowlege is power.
Pete
That is a VERY well written article, Pete! Brian Ribar was able to identify and image the different dies we see today. As to whether he's still a believer in the variety I do not know. There is a couple of prominent names who have bashed the overdate belief but most variety people are believers.
Thanks, Ron. You also commented on it when I first posted it, too. No doubt in my mind that it's an overdate.
Bash away, peeps. Ya won't change my mind.
Pete
Same here, Pete!
This has been a very informative post. Thank you all!
I was so strong into Buffalo Nickels in the 80’s and 90’s. Bought, sold many a high end and low end coin. I was the discover of the 1921 DDO written up in Coin World by John Wexler (I still have it in an ANACS slab) Then I lost interest for about 15 years, sold most of my collection. Well the past few years I have been getting back into coin collecting but not dealing. Buffalo Nickels still being my favorite. Thank you all again for you insight, knowledge and enthusiasm in this hobby.
Silverman68, jfoot13, GAB, ricman, Smittys, scrapman1077, RyGuy, Connecticoin, Meltdown, VikingDude, Peaceman, Patches and more.
I had a discussion with Mike Ellis about this when he worked for ANACS and lived here in Austin. He believed it was from clashing, because the major dies all showed heavy clashing. Overdate or not, as a cherrypicker/flipper I've made good money over the years off the variety.
Can't be from clashing. The date area is one of the lowest points of the die. Clashing is usually seen in the fields or the more shallow parts of the design. I had heard that Mike did think it was an overdate. No other coin in the entire series shows any clashing remotely similar than what's seen on the 14/13.
Tho it defies common sense clashing CAN occur into the shallower parts of a design, as seen in the following:
