1918/7-D, "to be or not to be?", an 8 over 7 overdate Opinions?
BUFFNIXX
Posts: 2,719 ✭✭✭✭✭
This coin is being offered on-line as a 1918/7-d overdate. What do you think? Opinions?
It is a raw coin
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
2
Comments
My opinion is that I don't know enough about the "tells" of a fake to know whether a coin is a good fake or real. So I don't buy expensive raw coins.
YMMV
Seems like it the flat part at the top of the 7 is clear enough.
NFL: Buffalo Bills & Green Bay Packers
Yes this is the real deal. The centers of the last number are offset on the real coin. On an 18 D the tiny center holes are stacked.
Use this slabbed coin for comparison to the above coin. It is an ngc slab.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
It’s not a matter of whether the coin is genuine or counterfeit - it’s genuine. The question is whether it’s an over-date.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Pics aren't very good, but I say its not the overdate. The holes in the 8 look to be too round.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
Ok. To me, it's "clearly" an overdate, but I would have no idea how to determine if that was altered to look that way, or real. That is what I meant. To me, a coin can be a "real" coin, but a "fake" special coin, in that people alter common, genuine coins to look like special coins. So I would not pay a significant amount (as this would cost if a genuine 1918/7-D nickel) without having a trusted expert (e.g., a quality TPG) confirm that it is real (as well as the grade).
I do not believe the coin shown in the OP is an overdate.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I also don't think the MM position is correct, compared to CoinFacts.
I don’t think it’s the overdate as the mintmark is not correct
Silverman68, jfoot13, GAB, ricman, Smittys, scrapman1077, RyGuy, Connecticoin, Meltdown, VikingDude, Peaceman, Patches and more.
I've never owned one, so not in any way proficient in its authenticity, but I would have concerns regarding the lack of curvature on the inner joint of the two rounded portions of the 8. The 7 is entirely inside the center of the 8 and should not show a straight pattern on the inner right side of the 8. Also, it appears to me that the straight section on right side of 8 points to the right side of lower hollow of 8 and should point towards the inside of the hollow. Could just be wear that is pushing my feelilngs, then it is just my opinion.
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
This coin was in an online ebay auction and has been taken down a while ago this evening
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
It doesn't look like it to me. Besides, if you have to ask, is this really the one you should have interest in?
Collector, occasional seller
Looks like a flat top 8 to me...I've been wrong before.
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
I don't mean to beat a dead horse but to build my post count... Position of mint mark is off. Also mm lacks serifs.
As others have said, the mint mark is wrong. Only the one die marriage was used.
Compare it to this genuine 1918/7-D Mintmark.
Pete
What’s wrong with numismatists having interest in coins (including attribution determinations) without contemplating buying them?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Nope.
mbogoman
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/classic-issues-colonials-through-1964/zambezi-collection-trade-dollars/7345Asesabi Lutho
No, No, No, not the Real Deal I would walk away on this one. Bad for the Coin Business if it sold as an 18/7 overdate. just IMO.
Mintmark position incorrect. They used one reverse die to strike 1918/7-D nickels. This isn't it.
"You can't get just one gun." "You can't get just one tattoo." "You can't get just one 1796 Draped Bust Large Cent."
Fake, The MM is all wrong as is the top of the 7 in the overdate.
What you’re describing would disqualify the coin from being an over-date, but that doesn’t make it “fake”. I think it’s important to point out the difference.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I do not think it's the 18/7. Have been wrong before, but the bottom circle of the 8 is to round
HAPPY COLLECTING
Mark I think you've grossly extrapolated my point to imply something that I didn't say. There's nothing wrong with having an interest in coins without contemplation of purchase. I stand by my opinion that if someone is looking for an overdate, this is not a good one to have interest in, as we can see here there are mixed opinions on it.
The MO of Buffnixx of late has been to post Buffalo Nickels that are for sale that he disagrees with. I expect that's what he was doing here too, but maybe he was gathering opinions before deciding on a purchase.
To expand on why I don't think it is the overdate, as others have said the MM appears to be in the wrong position and what would be the top of the 7 is at the wrong angle, it should be flat with the top of the 1.
What is your opinion on the coin in question? I see three posts from you in this thread but you have not addressed the coin.
Collector, occasional seller
To answer your question, I don't think the coin is an overdate.
Regarding your point that you feel I grossly extrapolated - it appeared to be directed to the OP, whose various posts about Buffalo Nickels, have shown that he knows them well. And, as you said, he tends to post about coins about which he has disagreements. So it seemed unlikely that he'd "have to ask" about the coin or that it was one he would "have interest in".
While you were apparently making a general point, it came across to me as one you were making to the OP, whose eyes were already wide open.
I apologize for the misunderstanding and agree fully with your point/opinion that:
"... that if someone is looking for an overdate, this is not a good one to have interest in, as we can see here there are mixed opinions on it."
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
When I posted this thread here I thought that this was not an overdate, in fact new it was not, but wanted to see how
many people would agree or disagree with me. I made my determination strictly on drawing an imaginary line thru the
center of the two inner "ovals" and this line was almost straight up and down (perpendicular?) to a line drawn under the date digits, so that test failed and I rejected it right there. If you do this line test on the second 8/7 above that is in an ngc
good-04 holder you will see that there is a significant left leaning slant to this line.
I notified the seller that this was not an overdate IMO and he notified me that he took the coin down and would give it study to decide to whether or not to put the coin back up. He was glad that I had expressed my doubts he said. Since this one fails the slanted line test and also the mint mark test and the obverse die crack test it is not an OD of course. But I still think it can fool a lot of people depending on what price a seller would ask. I can see someone offering this coin for say $500 and getting bites. And some people here did say they thought it was an OD.
Thanks for all who participated in this thread.
Interesting comments.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"