What do you think of this buffalo?

Agflyer

I know the 1916 typically has a nice strike, but is this one better than average? Also, based on the photo, what grade would you give it? Thanks in advance.

whoopig

I would like to know why it is not in a TPG holder? May be a problem coin?

ziggy29

<< <i>I would like to know why it is not in a TPG holder? May be a problem coin? >>

Might be, but I see no obvious signs. Not everyone slabs coins before they sell them. It's a good reason to be suspicious of a coin, but I wouldn't automatically assume it's junk, either.

Still, they have nearly 2800 feedback with 99.9% positives and a 15-day return policy, and only $2 for shipping, so it might be worth a shot. Heck, if there's no rub and the luster is all there, and the surfaces are original, this one looks like it could go 65.

BigD5

Looks well struck, but I don't like the brownish tinge to the surfaces. May have been dipped at one time. Looks like residue, as opposed to any sort of toning pattern.

Always impossible to tell for sure from a pic.

I stay away from sellers that advertise "high grade", or other vague terms in relation to grade, or condition. That's usually a red flag. Others may have a different opinion.

JRocco

I agree, it looks like a strong strike, but the rims, obverse especially, look a lot more beat up than the rest of the coin---I would request more pics before I pluncked down too much money for that coin. Based on the pics alone- I would say strong 65+. I would also think a seller like this would venture to put some kind of number, even a close guess.

oldcameoproofsguy

The Buff is well struck.

High grade probably means au58. I wouldn't bid more than au58 money for the coin.

D

Have to agree, the coin would grade anywhere from AU58-MS63 in my book. I've got a 64 in a PCGS holder that looks a lot better IMO.

-Daniel

ziggy29

<< <i>Have to agree, the coin would grade anywhere from AU58-MS63 in my book. I've got a 64 in a PCGS holder that looks a lot better IMO. >>

This coin may well be messed with or be a technical 58, but if it's mint state and not seriously messed with...where are the hits? It's a good strike, and I see very few hits and blemishes on the coin.

I'm not a Buff expert, so educate me. If this coin has no rub, has good luster and few marks, what brings this down to 63 or less?

I'm skeptical about raw coins on eBay and I'd certainly not pay 65 money or even 64 money for it based on a picture of a raw coin, but IF this coin is MS and unmessed with, what keeps it at 63 or less? If the coin isn't futzed with and it doesn't have any rub, it looks at least a solid 64 to me if not 65 (though again, I'm not a Buff expert).

Agflyer

Thank you all for your comments. It seems like I had some of the same thoughts that others have expressed as I also wondered about the color and the rims. The return policy is what hooked me on this coin though. The seller also has lots of positive feedback given, including positives given after an apparent refund. If it's as nice in person as it looks in the photos, I'm hoping to take advantage of the PCGS quarterly freebie and have this puppy slabbed. Thanks again!

MajorDuty

<< <i>I would like to know why it is not in a TPG holder? May be a problem coin? >>



Not everyone is obsessed with holdering coins.

It's a great looking Buffalo, from the pictures anyway. Look at the detail on the eye. Fair enough return policy. Go for it.

mgoodm3

Great strike and detail on that one

Shamika

Even for a 1916, that is an exceptional strike.

BigD5

Ziggy, the strike is all there on this particular coin. Unfortunately, luster and eye appeal are factored into grading just as much as the strike (choose to agree or disagree, but all three are the most important factors in determining an overall grade). Going back to my original comments, the coin looks like it is the vicitim of a bad dip job at one time, which would hinder the luster, considerably, and does anyone find that toning eye appealing?

As a matter of fact, this coin, TO ME, has a good shot at a body bag. Again, only going by the images.

Sure it's well struck, almost all 16's are, but from the images, the coin has serious flaws, to me.

Agflyer

I agree that the color is a little off in this photo, but it's also off in this one and this one, etc. I'm not so sure that it's the coin, rather the photo that lacks the eye appeal. Thanks again for all the comments!

tlhoy

<< <i>I would like to know why it is not in a TPG holder? May be a problem coin? >>



I'm getting tired of hearing this. Do you people realize there are hundreds of billions of uncertified coins in America.
Are they all problem coins?

ziggy29

<< <i>Ziggy, the strike is all there on this particular coin. Unfortunately, luster and eye appeal are factored into grading just as much as the strike (choose to agree or disagree, but all three are the most important factors in determining an overall grade). Going back to my original comments, the coin looks like it is the vicitim of a bad dip job at one time, which would hinder the luster, considerably, and does anyone find that toning eye appealing? >>


Which is why I originally said "Heck, if there's no rub and the luster is all there, and the surfaces are original..."

Digipics can be deceptive. I'd err on the side of conservatism myself, but I'd not condemn it sight unseen just because it's a raw coin on eBay as many do. I wouldn't bid strong money on such a coin and I'd assume there might be something wrong with it, but I'd also assume that there might NOT be anything seriously wrong with it. It then came down to the price you had to pay and your willingness to deal with the hassles of a return if it's rubbed and/or messed with.

BuffaloIronTail

Looks like at least a 65 to me. Yea, truth is that most all 16's are well struck. But, factor in survivability into the mix, and to me, the coin that's shown is real nice.

It has an abscence of marks, is well struck, with clear fields.

I'd be proud to have that coin in my collection.

Hope this helps.

Pete

BigGreek

Watch out for that one. I think it may BB for cleaning.