My first buff images, guess the grade ! - GRADE REVEALED (buy the coin, not the slab??)

Hyperion

I still only produce images of marginal quality.




I think I need more lights, and light filters !!

What do you think ? by far my most lusterous buff on an easy date.

13PacesEast

NG


not gold

Leiana

Hard to tell, really.

The strike is kind of indestinct, with regards to reverse detail in the bison's hide especially. There is substantial die wear in the reverse fields and obverse devices. The lustre is really nice, and it may be a trick of the photograph, but I think I see some rub on the high point of the Indian's cheek and his braid. On the reverse, I think there is a touch of rub on the bison's tail that is not related to the strike.

But those could be artifacts of lighting.

If I am seeing rub, AU58 (because the lustre really is nice). If there is no rub, the highest MS grade I would give it is 63 (possibly 64 on a good day) with the strike and die wear.

-Amanda

mgoodm3

Harsh lighting but not all too bad otherwise. I'd venture a 65 on it. A little difusion on the lighting may help soften it up a little and give you more even lighting.

gyocomgd

It's odd I know, but with the exception of the 37-D, I am less well-versed on the later P-Mint coins than any others in the series.
It generic terms, I'd say the strike is a tad weak and the coin does have a couple of hits. I'd say MS63/64.

MikeInFL

<< <i>I think I need more lights, and light filters !!

What do you think ? by far my most lusterous buff on an easy date. >>



Gorgeous coin. I think your photos are much better than "marginal", but that's neither here nor there. A few pieces of constructive criticism:

1) The photos are overexposed. See the areas of the coin that are completely "white" -- these are areas of overexposure.

2) The photos are slightly out of focus -- it could be a focus problem, or could be camera shake of some type.

3) You do not need more lights, necessarily, but better placement (or a bit of softening) of said lights. A single light is more than enough to get quality pictures of a buffalo. However, two lights often look better -- one to provide primary light, and the other at a greater distance from the coin than the first to lighten up the dark areas that are left by the first light. Use too many lights, and the coin will start to look lusterless.

Hope this helps...Mike

p.s. I guess 65.

Shamika

Interesting. The coin looks wet. MS65?

dunerlaw

ill guess 65

richardshipp

I'll say MS63

michael

looks great for first photos

if you do waht mikeinfl suggests you will have photos as good as anything on the web!!

my guesstimate of the buff is gem unc with great eye appeal

NumisOxide

MS65 but might be a MS64 due to those hits on the cheek.

Tonedbuff

MS64. Several prominant hits, and a mushy strike.

buffnut

65 to me. I love the wattery luster sometimes found on 36P and 36S buffs. I have a PCGS MS65 1936S that is literally prooflike- very watery and reflective fields. When I sold my entire collection of buffs the first time around, this was one of two coins that I refused to part with. No matter how I try though, I can never get a photograph to capture the reflective fields of the coin.

TorinoCobra71

Mint State Sixty Two!

TorinoCobra71

JJM

64

Julio

I always write down my guess before I look. Mine was 66. I seem to be in the minority. Can I go back and change it. . Naw, that's my guess/story and I'm gonna stick to it. jws

Hyperion

I really didn't do this to embarass anyone, but here's PCGS take :



I defer to their expertise with the coin in-hand. to me ? this looked GREAT. it's so lusterous I never picked up the hits on the cheek, I couldn't really see it without the image, but the image makes it Plain as day.


AMANDA hits the nail on the head
well done, YN !

buffnut

Fooled me. To me it still looks MS. Plus it just doesn't make sense to me- how can a coin circulate enough to wear flat spots on the metal, yet retain full mint luster like this coin has? I'm not doubting it's possible, but I just can't figure how?

Is this what we call one of those MS-58s? Or an AU-63?

As much as I think I've learned, I always find that it's just as easy to be wrong (although it happens less now )