1915-S Buffalo nickel: Riddle of the 'flat hip'

gyocomgd

The first place I look for wear on on a Buffalo nickel is the hip bone. If it's plateaued, it's usually a sign of wear. But it also can be the result of strike, and the 1915-S to me is the best example of that. This is a mint state coin, no sign of wear anywhere, and the hip definitely is flat. If it were raw, I wouldn't have enough confidence to pay MS money for it, not with my limited ability to detect fine amounts of wear.
Any other holdered MS examples with a flat hip going on?

Shamika

Guy - Sorry to say, but that coin is AU58 all day long.

I'll give you MS60 money for it.

jonesy

<< <i>Guy - Sorry to say, but that coin is AU58 all day long.

I'll give you MS60 money for it. >>





I checked to see if I had one. Apparently I only had a circulated one. It was an AU53 and I'm sure it had a flat hip!!

gyocomgd

Guy - Sorry to say, but that coin is AU58 all day long.
I'll give you MS60 money for it.

It ain't the only one I've seen like that, either, buster!

jonesy

I believe you Guy!!

relicsncoins

I can't grade this series to save my life. Mostly because I've never been really attracted to the series and therefor have never collected it and it is a tough series to consistently grade, at least for me.

JJ

GoldenEyeNumismatics

Buffs are hard to grade

Shamika

MS63? I would have guessed 64.

jonesy

<< <i>MS63? I would have guessed 64. >>



I think the luster makes it a 63.

DRG

I am going out on a limb, but I also would call this AU.

It is a very nice AU, and may be "market acceptable" MS63 but I am not sure that PCGS would give it any better than AU58.

Not only is the hip flat but there is a trace of wear across the shoulders. It is hard to tell but there may also be a touch of high point wear on the obverse hair.

My 1915 S looks almost identical to this coin. It also was in an NGC MS63 holder before I liberated it to my Dansco albulm.....but I have never been convinced mine would go any better than AU58 at PCGS.

Still a great looking coin!!

thebeav

Nice pix gyo.....and always nice buffs.
It's nice to see that someone else agrees with me that coin pictures don't need to be huge to be good.

Sunnywood

Many (although not all) coin types have one or more notorious high spots that will generally see the first tiny bit of wear on a slightly AU example. The key to determining the difference between a high spot that is struck flat (i.e. not fully struck) and one that is worn flat is in the luster. The question is whether the coin's naturally lustrous "skin" has been worn off at the high spot. You can determine this by tilting the coin under a light source, and seeing whether the reflectivity, color and texture of the flat high spot are the same as the surrounding well-struck unworn areas as well as the fields (that's an MS coin), or whether the flat area has a slightly more dull, possibly darker, and generally less reflective appearance.

This may sound complicated, but after you've seen a few, it is a very easy thing to determine. Granted, there may be some very clever coin dosctors out there who will brighten up that high spot with a touch of dip, so that it doesn't look more duhll than the surrounding areas ... but it still won't have the right surface finish and reflectivity.

The best way to acquire the eye for this is to look at lots of certified AU coins. Take a good look at all the nice lustrous PCGS AU58 coins you can find at a coin show, and see if you can spot the areas where the luster is worn through. After you've done that, take a look at some certified but not fully struck coins, say, some average strike MS62 to MS64 coins. You will definitely see the difference.

There are some series that are even more tricky ... the incuse Indian $2.50 and $5.00 are a good example. I wouldn't touch one of those raw with a ten foot pole, although I have looked at plenty of certified examples to educate myself.

Here is an 1892-S dollar PCGS AU58 that shows the slightest wear at the high points: the hair above the ear on the obverse (which was probably also struck slightly flat), and a tiny spot at the very center of the eagle's breast on the reverse. The coin is correctly graded AU58; however, in every other way, it is as nice as any MS63 of this date that I have seen. Occasionally, one can be very lucky to acquire an AU58 of this calibre.





Best,
Sunnywood

Newcomp103

I have seen a lot of MS examples of this date...the eye appeal is all over the place...for me, the circulated coins(more so from... VF30-EF45) seem to have a more "natural" look...not sure if that makes sense the way I said it, but it takes away some of the "is it AU or MS" question and many times they look pretty good.

gyocomgd

<< <i>The question is whether the coin's naturally lustrous "skin" has been worn off at the high spot. You can determine this by tilting the coin under a light source, and seeing whether the reflectivity, color and texture of the flat high spot are the same as the surrounding well-struck unworn areas as well as the fields (that's an MS coin), or whether the flat area has a slightly more dull, possibly darker, and generally less reflective appearance.
Best,
Sunnywood >>



Sunnywood, thanks very much. As Buffernicks often acquire a dullishness as they tone or haze--and the metal isn't all that brilliant to begin with--can't the luster break you refer to work just the opposite? Meaning, the high points are brighter than the surrounding devices and the fields? Check out the hips on these '13 Type 1s. On the first (no wear at all) The hip blends in uniformly with everything around it. On the second, the hip area is bright--cabinet friction as opposed to outright wear from circulation, but it does have a "polished" or brighter spot than the surrounding areas. I often notice this when I photograph my coins.
Guy

Sunnywood

If the hip area is different in appearance, finish, reflectivity, color and luster, then it requires scrutiny, whether brighter or darker !!

Unfortunately one cannot readily assess this from photos, so I can't comment on the ones you have posted. Very often an MS flat high spot will look a little dull, but when it is tilted in the light, the luster becomes apparent. If the MS high spot looks brighter than the rest, I would be scrutinizing it under magnification to see if there are any signs of whizzing, local application of dip, or alteration. Remember, if a toned coin is circulated, the worn spots may be brighter than the old toning. But for most collector coins, it doesn't happen that way. Most AU coins saw some circulation, and THEN were put away ... so the toning should cover all areas. however, in that case, the unworn areas retaining luster will tone differently, and retain more reflectivity in general.

Best,
Sunnywood

topstuf

Isn't it appalling how those older coins were designed? "Relief" all over the place and depth in the design. What on earth were they thinking? Me, I like the NEW coins where the design is so flat that BU or circ, they are still uglier than poo.

Sunnywood

<< <i>Isn't it appalling how those older coins were designed? "Relief" all over the place and depth in the design. What on earth were they thinking? Me, I like the NEW coins where the design is so flat that BU or circ, they are still uglier than poo. >>





So true !!!! What a bunch of junk nowadays, cheap base metals, high speed production that limits the ability to impress a deeper strike, a paucity of artistic merit, and just plain laziness when it comes to the density of fine detail and engravure. But that trend has been going on for some time ... it's easier to paint like Jackson Pollack than Rembrandt, and it's easier to construct faceless concrete buildings than an ornate marble and limestone façade. One really has to applaud Theodore Roosevelt for bucking this inevitable trend by revitalizing our coinage with superior artistry ... we need another Teddy Roosevelt: a person with both inspired vision and the backbone to make it happen.

I look forward to the failure of the Presidential dollars. They will never catch fire as circulating coin of the realm, and the parade of mortals will never be as beautiful as the artistic ideal of Liberty.

Best,
Sunnywood

roadrunner

I would tend to agree that Guy's 15-s Buffalo probably shows some high point wear on the horn, shoulder, nostril, hair, etc. But I try to shy away from looking at any one point (ie the hip) for wear until I assess overall luster on the coin...that is usually more indicative.

Rather than zero in on highpoints for wear I usually assess overall LUSTER on the coin: fields, design, rims. It's hard for a coin to have luster intact most everywhere but then have a touch of rub on a high point. It usually doesn't occur......19th century cabinet stored coins being one exception. What bust half doesn't have wing tip friction? (usually you have to start at MS66 or higher to avoid it).

Sunnywood's 92-s looks mint state to me by the photos. I'm always very skeptical of AU mint state coins that have full field luster and no real sign of field chatter (ie handling or circulation). Without a loss of luster on the cheek, neck, high facial features, I would be very suspicious of isolated wear on the hair over the ear since this is often an area of striking difficulty. While I agree that coins are technically AU58 if they have any luster breaks whatsover, those are now routinely TPG graded as unc if the breaks are "minor." Discoloration on high points, while often a good sign of friction, is not always foolproof. And again, the TPG's often ignore discoloration on high points when the rest of the coin displays full luster. If field luster is intact, I'd think NGC would grade the 92-s as UNC. Regardless, the coin would bring a mint state price imo...and Sunnywood would likely agree. Semantics again, your AU is my MS62, etc.

roadrunner