1937 Buffalo Nickel GTG

OAKSTAR

ANACS slabbed. Paging @CaptHenway

braddick

The tail tells the tale.
AU58

gumby1234

58

OAKSTAR

Very funny guys!

OAKSTAR

@braddick said:
The tail tells the tale.
AU58

Really, the tail?

PTVETTER

55

marcmoish

58

pursuitofliberty

Luster does not appear original (however the images are difficult) and there certainly appears to be wear, so 58 (at best) seems correct.

And yes, the tip of the tail does look damning for wear, as do parts of the cheek, chin, lips, nose and eyebrow on the obverse and trailing edge of the front quarter on the reverse

my 2c, based on poor images

gumby1234

@OAKSTAR yes, see the end of the tail is worn.

gumby1234

Its a really nice 58. There is very little difference between a 65 and a 58 and many 58 graded coins look better than their UNC counterparts.

braddick

@OAKSTAR said:

@braddick said:
The tail tells the tale.
AU58

Really, the tail?

Question me.
Am I wrong?

Smudge

Agree with the others, but ANACS may have given it a 65.

OAKSTAR

@gumby1234 said:
Its a really nice 58. There is very little difference between a 65 and a 58 and many 58 graded coins look better than their UNC counterparts.

Wait, what? Little difference between a 65 and a 58?

OAKSTAR

@braddick said:

@OAKSTAR said:

@braddick said:
The tail tells the tale.
AU58

Really, the tail?

Question me.
Am I wrong?

I trust you more then I trust me.

gumby1234

@OAKSTAR a 58 is nothing more than a nice UNC that has just a bit of rub or slight wear.

braddick

@gumby1234 said:
@OAKSTAR a 58 is nothing more than a nice UNC that has just a bit of rub or slight wear.

When my wife turned 58 I told her the same thing.

OAKSTAR

@gumby1234 said:
@OAKSTAR a 58 is nothing more than a nice UNC that has just a bit of rub or slight wear.

Hmmmm, okay so I'm thinking these Buff's are difficult to grade.

OAKSTAR

@Smudge said:
Agree with the others, but ANACS may have given it a 65.

I was wishing!

gumby1234

@OAKSTAR Buffalo nickels are very tough to grade

pursuitofliberty

@gumby1234 I think is egregious to say that there is very little difference between a 58 and a 65, without any type of context. And frankly, it isn't true in almost all cases.

@OAKSTAR While the difference between a Uncirculated coin and a 58 is sometimes very minor (it's all in the "rub"), 58's come in at least several shades of quality, with the most premium sometimes referred to as an AU64 (because, in fact, they would be a 64 save for that little rub/friction/handling).

Defining and understanding the difference between Uncirculated and Circulated is an important distinction, but saying a all 58's are a "brush" away from Gem, or even near-Gem is not correct, at all. Once a coin has signs of circulation, it probably has enough other marks and traces of handling to be considered more of a 61/2/3 in overall appearance, less the rub.

Exceptions exist for every rule, of course. There are, in fact, a very few AU65's and maybe even a rare AU66 out there too, but those are like blooming roses in a harsh Wisconsin winter. Your coin does not appear to have sufficient original frost and luster to be one of them.

OAKSTAR

Thanks for that detailed explanation @pursuitofliberty! 👍🏻

erwindoc

Looks AU Details to me, luster just seems off but it could be the image.

jesbroken

I would agree with the AU group, for certain. Too much evidence otherwise.
Jim

124Spider

58 and possibly polished.

BuffaloIronTail

The hip shows no wear, and is one of the first places to look for it. There is definite wear (I call it scuffing, or cabinet wear) that shows on Iron Tail's central hair area.

The wear seems minute to me, but it is there.

AU-58 could be a 62.

Pete

logger7

How would a little friction on the tail when the rest of the coin is an unc. be a limiting factor? I can't see a circulation scenario where that would happen, where a tiny part of the coin would be the tell-tale factor when the rest was spared that. I'll say gem.

telephoto1

The lighting makes the pics look overexposed so it's hard to get a good read. My gut says slider.

braddick

Are we going to get a final resolution to this probing GTG?

OAKSTAR

@braddick said:
Are we going to get a final resolution to this probing GTG?

Sorry about that. I'm so disgusted I kinda blew it off!!! 😫

I was hoping to hear from @CaptHenway

Overdate

@pursuitofliberty said:

Once a coin has signs of circulation, it probably has enough other marks and traces of handling to be considered more of a 61/2/3 in overall appearance, less the rub.

Wouldn't that make it more likely to receive a 55 rather than a 58?

pursuitofliberty

@Overdate

Not necessarily. If we properly grade circulated coins by wear, than an AU58 can be a coin that would have been the equivalent of almost any Uncirculated grade prior to the wear and rub.

A baggy 61 with a little rub and friction is just as much a 58 as a near mark free 64 with that same trace of rub.

I think this is an area where the 58+ grade has potentially filled a void, although that can be so subjective I'm not always sure I'm a fan of that process.

However, in practice, I think sometimes circulated coins are downgraded based on marks and eye appeal, even if technically they meet the wear conditions of a higher grade.

my 2c

Overdate

I think it would be difficult to precisely grade a baggy AU coin strictly on wear. It would be a challenge to parse out actual circulation wear from rubbing/marks encountered from being in an original bag with other coins.

Because there are four different About Uncirculated grades, they must be differentiated, at least in part, by factors that make up eye appeal. I don't think a baggy, weakly struck AU58 with no luster and very slight wear should outgrade an otherwise pristine AU55 with very slightly more wear, Eye appeal matters in the higher grades, and I think it should matter in the lower and mid grades also.

pursuitofliberty

@Overdate said:
I think it would be difficult to precisely grade a baggy AU coin strictly on wear. It would be a challenge to parse out actual circulation wear from rubbing/marks encountered from being in an original bag with other coins.

Because there are four different About Uncirculated grades, they must be differentiated, at least in part, by factors that make up eye appeal. I don't think a baggy, weakly struck AU58 with no luster and very slight wear should outgrade an otherwise pristine AU55 with very slightly more wear, Eye appeal matters in the higher grades, and I think it should matter in the lower and mid grades also.

.
I agree that the baggier they are when circulated, the harder they are to technically grade, especially AU55/58.

However "no luster" should immediately take ANY circulated coin out of 55/58 contention (and really, also out of 50 and 53 consideration), so I am going to call that.

And unlike MS grades where wear is not a deciding factor, in the AU grades AU50 has real wear and luster loss, while AU58 should not have much of either. I understand the baggier coins top AU coins getting 55, the nicer ones getting 58, and the very nicest being 58+ (or falling over the line even though they technically should not). Whether I always agree with it is another story.

Also, don't mistake grade with price. While grade may be the ultimate limiting factor in MS grades for many buyers (maybe incorrectly so, IMO), in any circulated grade there are probably five different levels of quality that have nothing to do with wear and technical grade, but everything to do with overall surface quality and appeal.

Like I think you are saying, "I'd rather have a gorgeous hot 55 any day than a near miss 61 in a 58 holder that doesn't have the eye appeal."

But that's price, not technical grading.

And I absolutely do not want to see circulated coins fall prey to the same level of Market Grading as the uncirculated grades have. Some is understandable. A great amount is not.

again ... my 2c

Overdate

@pursuitofliberty said:
However "no luster" should immediately take ANY circulated coin out of 55/58 contention (and really, also out of 50 and 53 consideration), so I am going to call that.

>

I have owned a few silver dollars with no luster graded MS60, technically uncirculated but with very limited eye appeal. But I don't think that very slight wear on such a coin should automatically downgrade it to XF45.

Also, don't mistake grade with price. While grade may be the ultimate limiting factor in MS grades for many buyers (maybe incorrectly so, IMO), in any circulated grade there are probably five different levels of quality that have nothing to do with wear and technical grade, but everything to do with overall surface quality and appeal.

>
Appeal is subjective, but overall surface quality is a feature that I think should be included as part of a technical grade.