Home U.S. Coin Forum
Options

PCGS buffalo nickel matte proof

"It was found that the relief of the mound caused the inscription in that area to wear quickly, so the bottom part of the reverse was subsequently redesigned, creating the so-called Type II. The Type I is distinguished by the presence of a mound with FIVE CENTS inscribed on it, as noted. Production of business strikes was accomplished at Philadelphia, Denver and San Francisco, with Philadelphia registering by far the largest mintage. At Philadelphia, 1,250 Matte Proof examples were made for collectors." - This is written on the pcgs website about Buffalo nickels.

I have a question. Where does the figure 1250 come from if I did not see in any source that there is a special issue not just a proof but a matte proof. And secondly, what year are they talking about? About 1913, maybe 1914, or about later issues?

Comments

  • Options
    hbarbeehbarbee Posts: 169 ✭✭✭

    There were five issues of the matte proof. You can go to this PCGS page and drill to the details for each.

    https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/buffalo-nickels-specialty-sets/buffalo-nickels-specialty-sets/buffalo-nickels-matte-proof-1913-1916/composition/3436

    I have an example of the 1916 in PCGS PR67 which is the lowest mintage.

  • Options
    jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 31,935 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Slerk said:
    "It was found that the relief of the mound caused the inscription in that area to wear quickly, so the bottom part of the reverse was subsequently redesigned, creating the so-called Type II. The Type I is distinguished by the presence of a mound with FIVE CENTS inscribed on it, as noted. Production of business strikes was accomplished at Philadelphia, Denver and San Francisco, with Philadelphia registering by far the largest mintage. At Philadelphia, 1,250 Matte Proof examples were made for collectors." - This is written on the pcgs website about Buffalo nickels.

    I have a question. Where does the figure 1250 come from if I did not see in any source that there is a special issue not just a proof but a matte proof. And secondly, what year are they talking about? About 1913, maybe 1914, or about later issues?

    The paragraph appears to be speaking about Type I coins. Therefore it is 1913.

  • Options
    robecrobec Posts: 6,603 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 7, 2024 10:18AM

    @Slerk said:
    "It was found that the relief of the mound caused the inscription in that area to wear quickly, so the bottom part of the reverse was subsequently redesigned, creating the so-called Type II. The Type I is distinguished by the presence of a mound with FIVE CENTS inscribed on it, as noted. Production of business strikes was accomplished at Philadelphia, Denver and San Francisco, with Philadelphia registering by far the largest mintage. At Philadelphia, 1,250 Matte Proof examples were made for collectors." - This is written on the pcgs website about Buffalo nickels.

    I have a question. Where does the figure 1250 come from if I did not see in any source that there is a special issue not just a proof but a matte proof. And secondly, what year are they talking about? About 1913, maybe 1914, or about later issues?

    The mintage for the T-1 Proof is 1520, not 1250.

  • Options
    MFeldMFeld Posts: 12,053 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Slerk said:
    "It was found that the relief of the mound caused the inscription in that area to wear quickly, so the bottom part of the reverse was subsequently redesigned, creating the so-called Type II. The Type I is distinguished by the presence of a mound with FIVE CENTS inscribed on it, as noted. Production of business strikes was accomplished at Philadelphia, Denver and San Francisco, with Philadelphia registering by far the largest mintage. At Philadelphia, 1,250 Matte Proof examples were made for collectors." - This is written on the pcgs website about Buffalo nickels.

    I have a question. Where does the figure 1250 come from if I did not see in any source that there is a special issue not just a proof but a matte proof. And secondly, what year are they talking about? About 1913, maybe 1914, or about later issues?

    Welcome to the forum.

    All Proof Buffalo nickels from 1913-1916 are referred to as Matte Proofs. So "Matte Proof" for those dates doesn't indicate a special issue (beyond the fact that they're business strikes that weren't intended for circulation).

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • Options
    MsMorrisineMsMorrisine Posts: 32,218 ✭✭✭✭✭

    i can't say for sure but mint numbers can be passed down through the years. back then there wasn't an internet to track them, but publications did. the first red book was published in 1947 and is still updated and published today

    also, the mint archives are housed in the national archives and those can be read. some interesting facts have come out of reading those archives.

    Current maintainer of Stone's Master List of Favorite Websites // My BST transactions
  • Options

    @MFeld said:
    All Proof Buffalo nickels from 1913-1916 are referred to as Matte Proofs. So "Matte Proof" for those dates doesn't indicate a special issue (beyond the fact that they're business strikes that weren't intended for circulation).

    So Matte Proof is not a special issue of Proof coins? Were all editions of this type produced in the new, fashionable Matte Proof style?

  • Options

    In general, I thought that for Buffalo Nickel, as for other coins, there is a difference between the classification of Proof and Matte Proof. I thought they were two different types and there are different editions for one and the other.

  • Options
    MFeldMFeld Posts: 12,053 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Slerk said:
    In general, I thought that for Buffalo Nickel, as for other coins, there is a difference between the classification of Proof and Matte Proof. I thought they were two different types and there are different editions for one and the other.

    As I mentioned previously, all 1913-1916 Proof Buffalo nickels are Matte Proofs. The proofs from 1936 include both Brilliant and Satin examples, and the ones from 1937 are all of the Brilliant finish.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • Options
    alaura22alaura22 Posts: 2,662 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 7, 2024 7:24PM

    1913-1916 are Matte Proofs
    1936 were Brillant and satin

  • Options
    VanHalenVanHalen Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Slerk said:

    @MFeld said:
    All Proof Buffalo nickels from 1913-1916 are referred to as Matte Proofs. So "Matte Proof" for those dates doesn't indicate a special issue (beyond the fact that they're business strikes that weren't intended for circulation).

    So Matte Proof is not a special issue of Proof coins? Were all editions of this type produced in the new, fashionable Matte Proof style?

    No, Matte proof is not a special issue. Only Matte proofs were made from 1913 to 1916

  • Options
    jfriedm56jfriedm56 Posts: 845 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I much prefer the brilliant proofs of ‘36&’37. Don’t you.

  • Options
    olympicsosolympicsos Posts: 697 ✭✭✭✭

    @jfriedm56 said:
    I much prefer the brilliant proofs of ‘36&’37. Don’t you.

    Matte proofs may be an acquired taste, but the matte proofs are closer to the artists original intent. Back then all of the renaissance artists opposed brilliant proof surfaces which is part of why there was a switch away from brilliant proofs.

  • Options
    jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 31,935 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jfriedm56 said:
    I much prefer the brilliant proofs of ‘36&’37. Don’t you.![

    No. I prefer Matte

  • Options
    jfriedm56jfriedm56 Posts: 845 ✭✭✭✭✭

    OK, but that's why the Mint returned back to brilliant proofs, because collectors IMO preferred the brilliance over the duller satin.

  • Options
    BuffaloIronTailBuffaloIronTail Posts: 7,413 ✭✭✭✭✭

    1,520 Type ! (Buffalo on mound) Matte Proofs were produced.
    1.514 Type II (Buffalo on plain) were produced.

    It was due to premature wear on the word "Cents" which tended to partially obscure the denomination that prompted the change to the Type II coins. This didn't affect the Matte Proof coins, but they also had to change those.

    The textured fields on the obverse created havoc with the dies, resulting in premature wear and micro cracking.

    Pete

    "I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
  • Options
    1Bufffan1Bufffan Posts: 619 ✭✭✭

    I believe, but not truly sure but the Matte type of proof coins was adapted from French styled coins from an earlier period that gave them the sandblasted or matted look. they were specially worked dies and the coins have a very sharp edge and struck twice to bring up the details. the Mint used the dies afterwards to strike regular issue coins, but they have a slight chamfer on the edge.

  • Options
    olympicsosolympicsos Posts: 697 ✭✭✭✭

    @jfriedm56 said:
    OK, but that's why the Mint returned back to brilliant proofs, because collectors IMO preferred the brilliance over the duller satin.

    But also aren't proof coins supposed to be the artists original intent? The brilliance isn't necessarily the artists original intent.

  • Options
    jfriedm56jfriedm56 Posts: 845 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @CommemDude said:
    I don't think the artist had any say over how the mint actually produced the coins.
    Buffalos proofs are either Matte, Satin, or Brilliant finish; refer to the Redbook for exact dates for each finish.


    CommemDude, wonderful group of proofs. They’re absolutely beautiful!

  • Options
    jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 31,935 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @olympicsos said:

    @jfriedm56 said:
    OK, but that's why the Mint returned back to brilliant proofs, because collectors IMO preferred the brilliance over the duller satin.

    But also aren't proof coins supposed to be the artists original intent? The brilliance isn't necessarily the artists original intent.

    I think that is using "proof" in a different context. "Proof" in a non-numusmatic context is often used that way: tests of accuracy of a rendering. In a numismatic context, the word refers to a method of manufacture not the purpose of the striking.

  • Options
    olympicsosolympicsos Posts: 697 ✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @olympicsos said:

    @jfriedm56 said:
    OK, but that's why the Mint returned back to brilliant proofs, because collectors IMO preferred the brilliance over the duller satin.

    But also aren't proof coins supposed to be the artists original intent? The brilliance isn't necessarily the artists original intent.

    I think that is using "proof" in a different context. "Proof" in a non-numusmatic context is often used that way: tests of accuracy of a rendering. In a numismatic context, the word refers to a method of manufacture not the purpose of the striking.

    But the numismatic context of proof originated from the non numismatic context.

  • Options
    GoldFinger1969GoldFinger1969 Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 14, 2024 7:13AM

    Courtesy of a numismatic expert who thought this could provide some useful information: :)

  • Options
    GoldFinger1969GoldFinger1969 Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 14, 2024 12:15PM

    @robec said:
    I sold my Buffalo Proof set 15 years ago which included this 1936 PR67 Satin. It’s now in a PR68+ holder. Looks like I >should have kept the set.

    Did you try for upgrades over the years ? CAC ?

    What happens to the price as you go from 67 to 68+ ?

  • Options
    robecrobec Posts: 6,603 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @GoldFinger1969 said:

    @robec said:
    I sold my Buffalo Proof set 15 years ago which included this 1936 PR67 Satin. It’s now in a PR68+ holder. Looks like I >should have kept the set.

    Did you try for upgrades over the years ? CAC ?

    What happens to the price as you go from 67 to 68+ ?

    I never did. In hindsight I wish I had kept them.
    I paid $2800 for it in a 2008 Teletrade auction. That was pretty close to what PCGS had listed in their Price guide at the time. There were very few PR68s in the whole series then, and there was no plus grades. Nearly all the 68s were owned by Gerald Forsythe.

    Even today the price guide for the 1936 Satin in PR67 hasn’t changed…….still in the $2850 area. In 68+ the guide is listed at $17,500.

  • Options
    Insider3Insider3 Posts: 260 ✭✭✭

    Where is Roger???

  • Options
    skier07skier07 Posts: 3,690 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I prefer the satin finish look

  • Options
    jfriedm56jfriedm56 Posts: 845 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Ok, ok everybody. I guess after seeing the absolutely beautiful satin and matte proofs, I must agree that they are as aesthetically pleasing as the brilliant Proof Buffalos are. Today many collectors like these, but they were new to collectors when they first were produced and I've read that they were not accepted as readily back in the day. So now I will need to add some of these to my collection!

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file