New 1913 I Buffalo--proof vs. business?

gyocomgd

I did some reading last night in the wake of speculation that the 1913 Buffalo I put up was possibly a proof. I retrieved another one of my best high-grade 1913s, looked at it closely and then imaged it so you can possibly make some comparisons.
My feeling--and of course I'm not sure, I'm intermediate not an expert--is that the coin on the bottom--the one I put up yesterday--could very well be proof. In hand the surfaces aren't quite as reflecting as when I throw the light right on it, and it does have a granular, elemental look to it, as Pete and the Lange book explain. The rims are sharper to the touch, whereas the one I'm putting up today (the first coin you see) has a more glossy, gleaming countenance. Forgive the quality of the one up top; it's a bit out of focus. I'm a little rushed.
Any comments welcome.
P.S.--One of our members bought the coin I put up yesterday, and I suspect he'll be a happy fella when this lands!

Today's coin:


Yesterday's coin (possibly proof)

longtimecollector

If I'm not mistaken (and I very well may be), 1913 Bufallo proof were matte finish....... I don't see that here........

koynekwest

Matte proofs have a dull, satin finish (NO Mint lustre), wide, flat rims, and even edges with no beveling at any point around the circumference of the coin.

Shamika

It's very hard to say. Although early proof Buffalo nickels look very much like business strikes (thus their lack of popularity back in the day) I would be surprised to find out you picked up a proof under the guise of a non-proof.

However, the inner rims of the coin in question have very sharp edges and the stike detail (especially on the reverse) is off the charts even for a date that is typically well struck. I hate to say it, but I would have had this particular coin certified before selling it.

There's no harm in trying to buy back the coin. The worse thing that can happen is nothing.

BuffaloIronTail

We're of the same though, Shamika. That's what I advised Guy to do.

Those rims are awful sharp and broad.

Pete

gyocomgd

Seller's remorse. My inexperience shows!

But the buyer, who obviously will remain anonymous, is a good fellow and you can bet the coin is going to someone who loves and appreciates Buffalo nickels.

Guy

Hoot

That's one wickedly struck buffalo nick. The rims have the broad, flat appearance of a proof and the details are stunningly sharp throughout. I'd have to see the coin in-hand to be sure, but based on your photos, I'd say that the possibility that the second coin is a proof are reasonable to consider. The matte/satin finish of those proofs gives them a very unique appearance that likely only you can judge (having the coin).

Hoot

koynekwest

The 1913 (and the 1915) can come with a very strong strike similar to the proof. It, and the 1915 are the two business strikes most easily confused with a proof. Even the surfaces can resemple the proofs. Once again-look at the EDGE. Do you see any beveling where it meets the rim? Look at a modern proof nickel-you'll see the difference immediately when comparing it to a business strike- The proofs have a "thicker' appearance. The only way to resolve the issue is to send it to a legitimate slabbing company-see what they call it.

TorinoCobra71

I got one in PCGS MS66 plastic and it dont look nowhere as good as that photo.......



TorinoCobra71