Options
I'm Bemused by a Grade This Coin Received
124Spider
Posts: 848 ✭✭✭✭✭
Hi,
This just went at auction. I was interested, until I looked closely at the coin. It's graded MS63 by PCGS, but looks more like a good XF coin (to me).
Yes, buffalo nickels are hard for me to grade, but that one looks like it has significant wear; especially on the reverse.
It went for about the Greysheet value (including BP), so someone else thought it was fine at that grade.
What am I missing?
Thanks!
0
Comments
I didn't blow up the picture but I'm not seeing any wear just on the pic you posted. Per the ANA Grading Standards, 1927-D is one of many years/mintmarks that are unevenly struck with weak spots in details. I think that is what is throwing you off.
I went to heritage and looked at the photo and the reverse suffers from planchet abrasion, I believe, and who knows what running down the face/tusk. Not a coin I would buy but to each their own.
It’s definitely a poorly struck coin. I think if it were strong for the grade, you would have seen higher bidding.
Good stuff; thanks!
I am terrible at grading Buffalos. I would never have known, but I would have guessed mid-AU possibly.
Early American Copper, Bust and Seated.
I would have guessed AU55-58. It does at first glance appear to have wear on the devices but as others pointed out, it could be from planchet abrasion, resulting in a soft strike.
Several of the D mint Buffaloes from the 1920s are notorious for their weak strikes, especially the 1926-D. Some of them have the detail of a VF coin, but are strictly MS.
You are not taking strike into consideration. Many D and S mint Buffalos especially from the 20's are weakly struck.
Evidently; "buy the coin, not the holder," indeed!
Mintmarked 1920's buffs almost always look flat. If you ever see one with a full strike and no problems for non PQ money, you should snap it up. JMHO.
Professional Numismatist. "It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
Where do you see a "tusk"?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Suppose this coin was posted to this forum raw, with a title like "GTG - should I submit for grading?". How many people would say PCGS MS63?
We would be pointing out the scratch, the planchet flaw, and (strike aside) what appears to be some rub on the hip, and I imagine the consensus would be AU details-pass.
But maybe I shouldn’t speak for the whole team….😉
@rhedden... Good question... I think most guesses would come in at high AU or at best MS60/1. Cheers, RickO
This is why i stopped buying raw coins for now, until i get better at grading.
To me i would have guessed AU53-55.
Didn't know about weak strikes on the 20's buffs.
Ill add that tidbit to my mental notes.
Successful BST transactions with....Coinslave87, ChrisH821, Walkerguy21D, SanctionII.......................Received "You Suck" award 02/18/23
At first glance, one might think AU, but when knowing that this coin only has an average strike and less luster, then looking close you would see their was actually no wear. I do not like the look of the coin for the grade and you may notice that prices for this grade vary from $500 to $2200 currently on ebay but all the coins listed are better looking, IMO. I would totally understand an AU thought on this coin. If buying coins, especially in this price range, a book should be a must. Again, 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
TPG grading is all over the place inconsistent on Buffalos. End of story.
Oh, I think you can. This is a pretty tough crowd ( I know from first-hand experience) and I'd wager that no one would grade this 63 in a GTG contest. The obverse looks OK, but the reverse looks AU, scratched and with possible pvc damage in the planchet flaw.
Tom
The coin is uncirculated. It suffers from a weak strike on the reverse, dulling the details.
Every collector is enamored with the striking issues on the 1926-D Buff .
1927-D also has its share of bad coins.
Pete
Some people would grade it 63. There are Buff specialists around and most of us with experience are aware of the strike issues with 20s mint marks.
There is at least one member who would have said "worth a nickel".
Just for comparison, here's my XF45 1937-D three-legs; I think it's a more attractive coin than the one I questioned above:
Not an apples/apples comparison. The coin in the OP is notorious for being softly struck and is mint state, though I might argue the 63 is a tad generous.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
I have a very simple rule to abide by. If I don't like the look of the coin, no matter what a TPG says is it's grade, I will pass on buying it every single time. Works like a charm.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I have to differ with you on this one. Assume you opine on a GTG on this coin (as I said, the obverse looks ok to me). Are you and others saying you would guess and grade the coin with this reverse as a 63?
If so, more power to you.
Tom
I like the word bemused {puzzled, confused, or bewildered} and I am learning a lot about these five cent pieces here.
Successful transactions with : MICHAELDIXON, Manorcourtman, Bochiman, bolivarshagnasty, AUandAG, onlyroosies, chumley, Weiss, jdimmick, BAJJERFAN, gene1978, TJM965, Smittys, GRANDAM, JTHawaii, mainejoe, softparade, derryb
Bad transactions with : nobody to date
I'm Befuddled why you are Bemused
Given that the majority of the graders called it a 63, how can you seriously question whether ANYONE (not everyone) would have correctly called it a 63? There are both graders and Buff nickel specialists on this forum.
Yup; hence my passing on it.
I was just surprised that that coin could be called an MS63. Yes, I understand that some coins have bad strikes. Yes, I understand that that still can be an uncirculated coin, despite looking so worn. And I understand that grading is an inherently-subjective process. But, between the fact that horn and the fur both look worn, and there's a big gash in the reverse, and the obverse isn't anything to write home about, I don't see a grade of MS63. A grading system that will give the same grade to a beautiful, detailed coin and one that lacks detail in bunches (especially given that they'll "details" grade some truly beautiful coins), seems deeply flawed, to me.
But nobody's asking me to be a professional grader, are they?
I'm questioning whether anyone could "correctly" call it a 63.
Sorry, I couldn't resist (yes, it's a joke, so please don't bother lecturing me).
We already had 3 anyones call it a 63... the 3 anyones that people want to pay for their opinion.
Grades below gem are mostly based on degree of preservation not eye appeal. If that coin were a 3 legged Buff, that reverse is probably a 65.
I had to lecture you, since you told me not to.
I agree that PCGS called it a 63. I also agree that the obverse of the coin counts for more than the reverse. In addition, we are evaluating the coin from photos, and unless it is an esoteric item, I do not purchase coins other than sight-seen. I also note that the coin in question sold for well over bid which provides some indication of its value.
But that wasn't my question. The question I posited was whether anyone on these boards would grade this coin as a 63 based on the photos (including mine)? I stand by the opinion that no one would (except, perhaps, to prove a point).
I'm reasonably familiar with 1920s buffalo nickels and their strikes. In general, the s mintmarks come weaker struck than the d minmarks, and even among the d minmarks, the 27-d comes with a better strike than many other d mintmark buffs in the 20s. If I'm doing a GTG or grading this coin based on the photos, I might like the obverse as a mid-grade unc. But when I turn the coin over, my opinion changes. This is not a coin like the 22 no d cent where you essentially grade the coin based on one side. Frankly, no coin gets that treatment. On buffalo nickels in the 20s one still grades the piece based on the entire coin. When I see the reverse of this 27-d, I have to downgrade the coin for the scratch, and I'd even consider NGing it, though that is probably too harsh. The planchet flaw in the jawline, with what I see as green pvc residue doesn't help its cause much. Plus, I see rub, or cabinet friction, on most of the high points. So, I see this as a 61, tops!
My opinion, based on the photos, is that the coin is over graded by a minimum of 2 points. If you have a different opinion, again, based on the photos, please explain.
But so far, I haven't heard anyone opine that, based on the photos in this hypothetical GTG, the op's coin is deserving of 63.
Tom
It is either a 58 or a 62 depending which time of he day it is, and not many would have disagreed with the grade.
Just the very lightest hint of rub.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Same coin, new day.
We can pretend the TPGs are consistent on Buffs but empirical evidence suggests otherwise.
Look, they want to get better just like every other company in the world. Buffs are difficult to grade everyone knows that so its up to the market to force the TPGs to get better, I am not picking on one company they all need to get the expertise to flow down the line.... the expertise is obviously there already. If the market forces a better consistency that helps us, the TPGs and the hobby.
You may want to get yourself a reference book on Buffalo nickels before you buy higher end coins. It will save you a lot of time and money.
To me, this coin very strongly raises the question of what is the purpose of a TPG.
Primarily, of course, to authenticate a coin. But also, in very large part, to allow people to buy a coin they haven't seen in person, with some confidence that there won't be a rude surprise when they see it.
They kill a coin for being cleaned. Even some very gentle, old cleanings, that take an expert to see, get killed. Presumably, this is to save us from buying a coin that the market won't like. And they kill coins with damage, for the same reason.
Why isn't exactly the same reasoning used for a horrible strike? Especially one with a significant gash in the reverse? If they're going to kill coins for entirely subjective reasons (bad cleaning--whatever that means--or damage--whatever the cutoff is for that), shouldn't they kill a coin like this one, that would be a rude shock to have bought if you didn't examine the photos carefully enough?
I understand, and agree, with grading, e.g., a 1922 no-D Lincoln cent entirely on the reverse, because the coin is interesting entirely for fact that the obverse die was polished to within an inch of its life. Similarly with other coins whose interest rest entirely in the flaw that makes is less sharply struck. But nobody would complain about a substandard coin like this one being graded something like "Unc. Details--Poor Strike." To me, it is entirely inconsistent to call this coin an MS63, as if it's a very nice coin, while you bag up a coin that actually is very nice, but shows a slight touch of "improper cleaning."
Never a bad idea, of course. But that doesn't obviate the need to look carefully at a coin (or its photos) before buying, since knowing that some coins often are poorly-struck isn't the same thing as being forced to buy one that is poorly struck (assuming some are not so poorly-struck). I would have been very unhappy had I bought that coin, but I am sure that there are lots of 1927-D buffalo nickels that are better struck.
In almost every case, details-grades are given to coins with post-strike issues, but not for as-struck deficiencies So, for example, like it or not, a weakly struck coin might be graded lower than it otherwise would be, but it’s not going to receive a details-grade.
At the same time, the large majority of coins with “very gentle, old cleanings, that take an expert to see” receive straight grades, not details-grades. And it’s not typically for “entirely subjective reasons” that coins receive details-grades for (too much) cleaning, damage, altered surfaces or other problems.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I understand what you're saying. I'm just suggesting that it's a deficiency in the system, that allows a deeply-flawed coin like this to get a very nice straight grade. It certainly reduces the benefit of the system, to me.