Thoughts on 1931-S Buffalo

gyocomgd

Just landed today. Thoughts as to grade and general comments both welcome; I took a chance paying 65 money for it but haven't seen many a lot better.

BuffaloIronTail

You might have paid too much.

My experience with this date and mint tell me that they were better prepared and struck as a whole, although even with all the time that Mint employees had on their hands during the Depression....

Still there will be some softer strikes.

Your coin exhibits softness to the central obverse and reverse, some peripheral die erosion from overuse, and a lightly struck front leg on Black Diamond.

If I was to postulate why this coin looks hastily prepared, It is because it probably was struck late in the year........all the way to year's end.......to bring up the mintage figures to a decent level.

194,000 were minted early in the year, with no more forthcoming! When the main mint in Philadelphia found this out.......they advised San Francisco to bring the mintage up, otherwise all the coins would not circulate due to becoming instant rarities. They worked on them quite feverishly to close out the year.

Most of these coins did not even get released to banks until three or four years later...there was no need for them.

I'd say your coin is probably a 64.

Hope this helps.........

Pete

jonesy

Hey Pete!! Where'd you get the information on the mint??? What book???

buffnut

Looks rather strong in the luster department, although it might hint of a light cleaning. Hard to tell from the photos. The strike is average, decently struck examples can be found with diligent searching. I have yet to see one fully struck. My PCGS MS65 is one of the better strikes I have seen. If it weren't for several ticks on the reverse, it may have gone 66.

jonesy

Here's my ex 31S in PCGS MS65!!

fcloud

Here are a couple to ponder. The 65 looks better in person, as my camera is old (end of excuses). I still own the 64 and 65. The 65 has a much better strike than the 64. I think the best you will do is 64, but I think it may go lower.

AU58

MS64

MS65

Shamika

gyocomgd,

Looks like a 65 to me. The hit/scuff on the Buffalo's shoulder keeps it from a 66, but the luster looks pretty good and the strike is about typical for a 65.



Buffnut,

That is one insane strike for a 31-S! I don't think I've ever seen one that had that kind of detail.

jonesy

<< <i>gyocomgd,

Looks like a 65 to me. The hit/scuff on the Buffalo's shoulder keeps it from a 66, but the luster looks pretty good and the strike is about typical for a 65.



Buffnut,

That is one insane strike for a 31-S! I don't think I've ever seen one that had that kind of detail.

>>

BuffaloIronTail

Jonesy..........most of what I wrote came from David Lange's Buff Book. It is A MUST for anyone considering the series.

Pete

jonesy

<< <i>Jonesy..........most of what I wrote came from David Lange's Buff Book. It is A MUST for anyone considering the series.

Pete >>


I have it. Guess I need to do a little more reading!!

gyocomgd

<< <i>Looks rather strong in the luster department, although it might hint of a light cleaning... >>



What would indicate cleaning? The luster is uniform and no hairlines at all. That's the one potential weakness that never occurred to me in looking at this coin.

Shamika

31-S Buffalo's often have really nice luster and looking at yours, I don't think it has ever been cleaned. I think it's problem free.

buffnut

<< <i>What would indicate cleaning? The luster is uniform and no hairlines at all. That's the one potential weakness that never occurred to me in looking at this coin. >>



It probably is original, it's very hard to tell from photos. The lighting may give it a more yellow appearance than it actually has, and that coupled with the reflective nature in the photo gave it a mild "polished" look. I'm just throwing out worst case scenarios. Like mentioned earlier, the 31s coins typically had very strong luster.

buffnut

<< <i>Here are a couple to ponder. The 65 looks better in person, as my camera is old (end of excuses). I still own the 64 and 65. The 65 has a much better strike than the 64. I think the best you will do is 64, but I think it may go lower.
>>



I like the AU58 best!

buffnut

For anyone looking for a nice 31S, here is a very nicely struck example:
Linky

MikeInFL

MS 64

jom

jom

yellowjacket

That's an original, flashy 31-S. Most came with bright luster. I would call yours a 64 for the strrike. All ya'll talking about grading a 66 must remember only 1 has made that grade so far. My raw 31-S bought in 1974 from New England Rare Coin Gallery (remember them?) came back as a 65.

Keep trying!

YJ

DRG

I agree with BuffaloIronTail. The coin is too softly struck to make PCGS MS65 and the front leg of Black Diamond is WAY too soft with too many marks. The definition on the obverse between the indians hair and his face is also much too weak for the MS65 grade.

It is a nice looking coin overall and might make NGC MS65 but would be a MS64 at PCGS.

One thing about buffalo's is that there are 2 distinctly different types of MS63 and MS64 coins. Some are MS63-64 because of a weak strike. They may be totally mark free but can't grade higher for lack of detail. The others are well struck coins with a couple of marks that knock them out of the GEM grades.

I MUCH prefer this second group of coins. I would rather own a incredibly well struck coin with all the beautiful detail marred by a tick or two than a mushy weakly struck coin that happens to be mark free. They are both MS64's but what a world of diference!

cape

this is a nice coin ,not fully struck ,but the luster should carry this coin into a 65 holder

ad4400

As a new collector can any one tell me what the marks are along the rim at 7-8 o'clcok on both the obverse and reverse

jom

ad4400: I think you mean the small little lines. Those are created by a weak die state. As the number of coins are being pressed the die being used is wearing out. This usually shows around the edges of the coin.

jom

ad4400

Yes I was noticing the small lines. Is the cause/effect here worn die = weak stike = the lines, or what I think my grading book calls "crisscross lines" or "planchet abrasion"?

jom

<< <i>Is the cause/effect here worn die = weak stike = the lines >>



Weak strike is not the same thing as a weak die. A strike can be weak simply because the "hammer" and "anvil" dies were set too far apart. The reasoning used many times was to prevent (as much as possible) the wearing down of the dies. If the dies are used too much then you'll get a weak die state strike.

This was prevalent in the making of Buffalo nickels at the branch mints between roughly 1915 and 1931. The branch mints didn't get enough dies to make the alloted coins or there was simply bad production quality (probably both).

jom

BuffaloIronTail

Jom. You're right in your assessment.

The coin in this thread was struck from dies ready to be retired.

Note the "Moth eaten" effect on the Indians neck. Note also the missing detail on the Indians head area.

Look to the reverse, and notice that the head and horn on the Buff are very well-struck.

There is also erosion near the rim. These are all symptoms of die fatigue. The striking pressure is there, but the dies cannot impart the desired sharpness due to wear.

An example of insufficient die-set, or spacing, would create a soft-looking coin with nice fields, but very poor detail. There would be no erosion, just incompleteness.

Hope this helps.

Pete

Craton

Beautiful coin.

Numismanic

Here is my 31-S graded MS65, I've tried upgrading it once to no avail.