Is this a 1914/(3) Buffalo Nickel? Guess the grade.
Aspie_Rocco
Posts: 3,259 ✭✭✭✭✭
Opinions? Is this a 1914/3? Grade? 
http://www.pcgs.com/SetRegistry/publishedset.aspx?s=142753
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
0
Comments
The entire area at the top of the 4 looks off. There is too much metal showing from the top of the 3, and it seems to be too high. The location of the 4 looks off in relation to the 1 next to it.
The coin itself should grade G-6.
They have been delisting these, and are extremely picky about what they certify.
I don't think this is an overdate, my opinion, of course.
Pete
Is they PCGS?
That’s a tough one @Aspie_Rocco …. Looks to me the top part of the beginning of 3 and the middle part could’ve been a 4 by looking at the sharp corner of 4🤔
Turn it in and have fun with the anticipation 🤗
Cannot tell from that picture. Might be.
For that coin, I would say that professional analysis will be necessary. I do see an anomaly, but cannot determine what it may be. Good luck, Cheers, RickO
Here is a closeup of the date on a XF40 from CoinFacts. Not sure if diagnostics from a photo are discernible.
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
thanks for the image as i was pretty sure i remembered them being either level with the 4 or slightly below, which that image shows, although different dies may have different placement. i don't recall them being as high as what the coin in the OP looks like, so i'll just say no, it isn't and since they've been slowly nuking the listings for them, not sure it matters even if it were to be a "new" one. fwiw
What is the latest statements regarding the reality of it even being a 4/3? I remember hearing it to possibly being removed as an overdate, but never all the reasons why. I would like to know why exactly and who made this assumption. I truly understand, as I have never held nor looked at an actual high grade 14/3 example to see the die lines/polish to truly be able to confirm previous specialists', such as Fivatz or Lange's, findings. It's always been a bit of a mystery coin for me and, truthfully, not one I ever held interest in, such as the 16/16 or 18/17, which I searched many a roll for. I just would like to have the reasoning for both directions on the 14/3 Buff for the sake of knowledge.
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
@Aspie_Rocco
In my eyes, it's not. But I'm no expert.
No recent changes in the status. A majority of us “experts” believe that they represent a group of 1913 obverses that were deliberately overdated with a concerted attempt made to obliterate the underdates. A credible minority disagrees.
You are free to agree or disagree as you wish. However, no one person is in a position to tell others what they can or must believe.
.
i know there is something here for me to pick at but the articulation/reasoning isn't coming to me so i'll just ask:
do you say/think it is a rehubbing of master dies with dates redone to make working dies? also, have you/people you know that have SCOURED high-grade examples (not sure how many candidates there are as i've really only ever seen mostly circ examples) for other potential diagnostics? sometimes it can be something seemingly innocuous. pretty much the same process how i do approach discoveries/authentication for better or worse.
perhaps the NNP has some records or reworked hubs/dies. (i freely admit in not being super knowledgable in each step of going from making a hub to a master die to a working die and any steps in between and precisely the process(es) in reworking/rehubbing etc. - SURELY the reworking of many dies wouldn't go unreported? i'm sure if someone really researched, just here and ngc forums archives, would probably turn up something but would be a LOT of reading.
so i guess my question is (like with the 59-p wheat reverse 1c thread) where diagnostics from some other years coins, in this instance 1913 may have something to match up on a 4/3 specimen(s) proving that a 1913 die struck a 1914 coin?
Thank you everyone for the replies and information.
http://www.pcgs.com/SetRegistry/publishedset.aspx?s=142753
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
.
is it graded? or were you just asking what others think?
i've been waiting for a grade.
Oh no, sorry, it is raw > @LanceNewmanOCC said:
http://www.pcgs.com/SetRegistry/publishedset.aspx?s=142753
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
I wrote the following back in 2006:
https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/61238-the-19143-buffalo-nickel-overdate-story/
Time flies, I guess.
Pete
There getting very picky about what they holder now, one of my customers is a buffalo variety expert, and I just got his submission back, and they would not give him the 4(3) , on same coin and die state he used to send prior.
This goes right along with what has been happening with delistings, etc.
Pete
The date is definitely 1914, but I don't think it is the overdate. The horizontal bar is too high to be that of a 3. What you have here may be uneven or unexpected circulation wear that would have eventually obliterated the numerals altogether.
Custom album maker and numismatic photographer.
Need a personalized album made? Design it on the website below and I'll build it for you.
https://www.donahuenumismatics.com/.
The upper portion of the bar of the 3 off not located correctly. Looks more like a die chip to me.
JMO
That is not what I say happened. My theory is that a batch (no idea how many) of working dies were given their first hubbing impression from a 1913 working hub. As seen on the 1916 DDO nickel and the 1919 DDO dime, the first hubbing impression did not complete the design all the way out to the rim. A ring inside the rim was left blank. When you had a horizontal design element offset from the vertical center line of the design, such as the date on the 1916 nickel or the IN GOD WE TRUST on the 1919 dime, the end closest to the rim is weaker than the end closer to the vertical center line. Go look at a picture of the 1916 DDO nickel and see how the upper right part of the date is the strongest.
If a batch of 1913 obverse working dies were partially hubbed, the top of the 3 would be the strongest part of the 1913 date showing. IF, and it is only an IF, these partially-hubbed 1913 dies were then finished with a 1914-dated hub, they would show the top crossbar sticking out on either side of the top of the 4.
I think that this is what happened, and that the Engraving Department then tried to tool away as much of the crossbar as they could from each die. All show some sort of tooling there, with varying results.
THis is the most logical and likely explanation for what happened. I have not heard a better explanation for this group of dies.
TD
.
.
@CaptHenway - in case you didnt see.
tx for your take.
just came across this while scouring V V looking for neat/new stuff.
http://varietyvista.com/03 Buffalo Nickels/Research on the 1914.3 Dies.htm
Hard to tell from the OP pic but I lean towards it not being the overdate. The area around the last digit doesn't look right.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012