1915 Buffalo nickel: Common date, uncommon quality

gyocomgd

This is my piece for the date and mint. Hard to catch the luster, but it has it in spades, and it's well-struck even for a well-struck issue. A real gem in every way. Merry Christmas everybody!

LincolnCentMan

Very nice. The strike is all there and the luster is just right. I just upgraded my 15-P buff a few weeks ago. It was in a NTC 64 holder, but is more accuratly graded as a 63. It goes perfect with my set and has already found it's way into the dansco.

-David

buffnut

Very nice even toning with a great strike. You can tell the luster is booming by the way it shows a certain "sheen" in the fields. A very nice piece! If anyone says AU58 on this one, then they need to lay off the pipe-

gyocomgd

It's in a PCGS MS66 holder, so I agree on the 58/crack pipe assertion!

richardshipp

Very Nice. Easy 66 even before I saw your grade.

RWB

There are too many JPG compression artifacts to determine the quality of the coin. Can you post a photo with higher quality and less compression?

Newcomp103

ricko

Very, very nice coin. Cheers, RickO

cape

guy, very high end 66 and mery xmas to all you buff nuts!

gyocomgd

<< <i>There are too many JPG compression artifacts to determine the quality of the coin. Can you post a photo with higher quality and less compression? >>



No, but I appreciate your interest.

Barndog

<< <i>

<< <i>There are too many JPG compression artifacts to determine the quality of the coin. Can you post a photo with higher quality and less compression? >>



No, but I appreciate your interest. >>



I don't even know what the heck the comment meant.

RWB

If you look closely at areas around lettering or the reverse field under the bison, etc, you will see little rectangular shapes and "fuzzy" places. These are caused by using too much compression when saving an image in JPEG format. These are called "compression artifacts" and are defects in the image that obscure detail. They are created by the JPEG algorithms and are present to some extent in all JPEG images.

I asked to see an image of the nickel that was saved with very little compression. Such an image would show more detail (and hence, more of the surface quality) than the one posted.

The request is not a suggestion that anything is wrong with the coin - only that the image quality is too low to permit me to offer an opinion on the coin.

Presumably, the poster does not have access to a better image. Too bad ‘cause superficially, the piece appears to be well struck possibly from worn dies.

gyocomgd

Worn dies?? You sent me scurrying to Photobucket. These are different images. Thanks for you thoughts.

bhartman35

Beautiful buff!

The "TY" in Liberty looks weakly struck to me, but I don't know enough about the series to know if that's normal.

gyocomgd

<< <i>Beautiful buff!

The "TY" in Liberty looks weakly struck to me, but I don't know enough about the series to know if that's normal. >>



I think it's just a tad out of focus. It's raised, sharp and distinct in-hand.

Shamika

I was going to throw a very conservative guess of 65, but 66 looks right. Strike, luster, and just the right color. A beautiful Buffalo!

clw54

Cool buffalo.