NEWP Amazing MS 64 Buffalo OBH. Thoughts Please

Walkerlover

I saw this coin from a seller on EBay that only sells coins occasionally. Normally I don’t buy MS 64, but the photos grabbed me. Just received today. Coin has the most incredible luster with a great strike, mainly reverse sharp strike. I think maybe the coin is a first strike off the dies. Also minor contact marks for a 64. Your feedback most appreciated. Thanks.
Seller Photos First

My Photos

Morgan13

I am sure its a nice coin but the images aren't that good.
It would be worth the effort if you could get some better shots.
Id really like to see it.

P0CKETCHANGE

@Morgan13 said:
I am sure its a nice coin but the images aren't that good.
It would be worth the effort if you could get some better shots.
Id really like to see it.

Here are the seller close-ups from the eBay listing:

Walkerlover

@P0CKETCHANGE said:

@Morgan13 said:
I am sure its a nice coin but the images aren't that good.
It would be worth the effort if you could get some better shots.
Id really like to see it.

Here are the seller close-ups from the eBay listing:

What do you think of the coin? I can get a few better shots if you like

TomB

Looks like a great coin, but better shots would certainly be appreciated by all. The holder is also my favorite of the blue insert series as these were issued from around October, 1998 through February, 2002. The cert number, which I know they were not issued sequentially, is also consistent with a 1999 submission as I have some I submitted at that time with numbers around the same range.

Morgan13

@P0CKETCHANGE said:

@Morgan13 said:
I am sure its a nice coin but the images aren't that good.
It would be worth the effort if you could get some better shots.
Id really like to see it.

Here are the seller close-ups from the eBay listing:

Oh yea thats a really nice coin. The luster really shows up and the strike is nice!

Walkerfan

Awesome! I love it!!

I have a similar story:

Bought this one about seven or eight years ago at the ANA convention. At $75, I ‘overpaid’ because I liked the PCGS 2.1. Retail is $160 now and that is without taking the holder into consideration.

I get it. It isn’t about the money or the fact that it’s a common date. It’s just a nice coin in a cool holder…. Just like yours.

Walkerlover

@TomB said:
Looks like a great coin, but better shots would certainly be appreciated by all. The holder is also my favorite of the blue insert series as these were issued from around October, 1998 through February, 2002. The cert number, which I know they were not issued sequentially, is also consistent with a 1999 submission as I have some I submitted at that time with numbers around the same range.

Tom here are 2 more pictures. Let me know if these are good. Thanks

BigFrankie

Fully struck Rev. And well struck Obv.

A very nice coin! Holder type is one of my favorites as well.

Walkerlover

@TomB said:
Looks like a great coin, but better shots would certainly be appreciated by all. The holder is also my favorite of the blue insert series as these were issued from around October, 1998 through February, 2002. The cert number, which I know they were not issued sequentially, is also consistent with a 1999 submission as I have some I submitted at that time with numbers around the same range.

Tom in hand the coin actually looks slightly mirrored and proof like. But the reverse looks it much more

ChrisH821

Very good value coin at that grade with that sort of eye appeal.

TomB

It appears kind of PL in some of those images.

Walkerlover

@BigFrankie said:
Fully struck Rev. And well struck Obv.

A very nice coin! Holder type is one of my favorites as well.

Love the PNG blue holder look. My favorite even more than the OGH

U1chicago

Looks nice and the semi pl look is a bonus.

Walkerlover

@TomB said:
It appears kind of PL in some of those images.

After reviewing the coin further it looks like it has the characteristics of a brilliant proof 1936, not a typical uncirculated piece

BuffaloIronTail

It has proof attributes but is a little to beat up for the designation. Great coin, A little too much chatter on Iron Tails chin IMHOP. Might be why it's only a 64.

Pete

Walkerlover

@BuffaloIronTail said:
It has proof attributes but is a little to beat up for the designation. Great coin, A little too much chatter on Iron Tails chin IMHOP. Might be why it's only a 64.

Pete

.

Walkerlover

@Walkerlover said:

@BuffaloIronTail said:
It has proof attributes but is a little to beat up for the designation. Great coin, A little too much chatter on Iron Tails chin IMHOP. Might be why it's only a 64.

Pete

.
The coin has the l appearance of a MS 67-68 grade due to its incredible insane luster with the proof like reflectivity

airplanenut

@Walkerlover said:

@Walkerlover said:

@BuffaloIronTail said:
It has proof attributes but is a little to beat up for the designation. Great coin, A little too much chatter on Iron Tails chin IMHOP. Might be why it's only a 64.

Pete

.
The coin has the l appearance of a MS 67-68 grade due to its incredible insane luster with the proof like reflectivity

I bet a large number of these coins have insane lustre with the prooflike reflectivity and yet, for some reason, there are but 5 67s and not one of them graded 68

MFeld

@Walkerfan said:
Awesome! I love it!!

I have a si.
@Walkerlover said:

@Walkerlover said:

@BuffaloIronTail said:
It has proof attributes but is a little to beat up for the designation. Great coin, A little too much chatter on Iron Tails chin IMHOP. Might be why it's only a 64.

Pete

.
The coin has the l appearance of a MS 67-68 grade due to its incredible insane luster with the proof like reflectivity

Spoil sport alert…
I’m sincerely happy for you that you’re so enamored with your new acquisition.
However, even though PCGS rewards eye-appeal, despite whatever attributes the coin has, after examining it in hand, they graded it a pedestrian (non-PL) MS64.

Of all the coins I’ve seen posted here, many of which were graded multiple points higher than this one, I don’t recall any that were described with more hype than this one: “Amazing”, “incredible insane luster”, etc.

Based on the images, I suspect that the post by @U1chicago might have presented a more realistic description:
“Looks nice and the semi pl look is a bonus.”