Buffalo matte proof book

kevinj

Wanted to get the Buffalo matte proofs done also.

Was thinking of doing a second edition of the Lincoln cent matte proof book and combining with the Buffs,
but the first edition has to sell out, and not sure how long that will be.

The primary purpose of the Buff matte book would be to
document all die diagnostics for all Buff proofs between 1913 and 1916
do a date by date analysis
provide other analysis which is specific or helpful to the Buff mattes.

I do not want any matte analysis, archive research, mintages, which would be duplicated from the Lincs.

I would also like to include analysis from experts on this series.

If anyone has other suggestions on what needs to be in this book, please advise.

Also looking for coins to study and document die diagnostics.

Thanks
Kevin
kevinjflynn88@yahoo.com

illini420

Very cool. I know a lot of folks that collect Matte Proof Buffalo Nickels also include the 1936-37 proofs in their sets. Since there are only a couple of coins, you may wish to include something on those as well so that you'd be covering all of the proof Buffalo Nickels.

kevinj

Has anything been done on the die diagnostics on the Buff mattes?

waterzooey

I have studied my Matte Buffs.. I have not tried to study die characteristics of other peoples... I would be willing to use my coins to be imaged- They are all 65/66 (By no means top pops) but they are real clean with non carbon... They also have some very nice color to them.

I have 3 copies of your MPL book and would definitely be interested in the MPB book... I do agree with Illini about the 36/37 proof as I included them with my MPB... If there is anything I can do to help, move it along, or anything else just let me know-

mercuryhntr@yahoo.com

kevinj

Makes sense, will add the 36/37 Buff mattes.

Duane Blake helped me in a lot of different ways in the Lincoln cent matte proof book.

I am proud to say that Duane will be coauthoring the Buff book with me, he already has
a ton of ideas for the book and is anxious to work on it, we have actually been talking
about it since the Linc book came out.

Thanks
Kevin
kevinjflynn88@yahoo.com

ambro51

Kevin, the 1936 and 1937 Buffalo proofs were not mattes.

...thought you wuz the 'expert' here........

waterzooey

he is fully aware of the status of the 36 and 37 but it is at the behest of a few of us that he include the 36 and the 37. There are plenty of die characteristics that can be photographed as well as the die polishing that led to the few and far between cameo Buffs. I look forward to this book more than the MPL book.

Being a collector of both sets I cannot downplay the excitement I have about this pending book.

John

Duane

<< <i>Makes sense, will add the 36/37 Buff mattes.

Duane Blake helped me in a lot of different ways in the Lincoln cent matte proof book.

I am proud to say that Duane will be coauthoring the Buff book with me, he already has
a ton of ideas for the book and is anxious to work on it, we have actually been talking
about it since the Linc book came out.

Thanks
Kevin
kevinjflynn88@yahoo.com >>



What an honor it is for me to be part of this coauthor effort of such a cool project with Kevin!

And I think the most exciting part for me substantively is that the MPB 1913-1916 series, along with the 1936 Satin/Brilliant types, and the Brilliant/Cameo 1937 Buffalo Nickels have no documented work (to my knowledge) ever done relating specifically to the series' issue-by-issue diagnostics. At least with the MP Lincoln book, we had the Leonard Albrecht pamphlet as a basis to begin our analysis. Here, as mentioned, we're starting from scratch.

So I think that Kevin is wise in querying the collecting public for any research or information that may have already been discovered. Why reinvent the wheel?

I concur that if anyone does have information to share, please free to contact Kevin or me directly at kevinjflynn88@yahoo.com or duane.blake@comcast.net. New thoughts are always appreciated.

Just as an FYI teaser, how many of you Proof Buffalo experts know that the Buff Proof series actually contains 6 type coins in an 8 coin set? That is NOT including the 1937 cameo. Can you guess the types? I know one 'type' surprised me, as it has not traditionally been recognized as an independent variety. This of course will have to be researched a little further, but who knows?

In case you are curious, I suggest that you buy the book and find out!!

Thank you all, and take care.
Duane

commoncents05

Why not include the 1927 Specimen Strikes as well?

-Paul

BUFFNIXX

wonder if he will be doing a piece on the 1935 satin finsh proof.

kevinj

I knew the 36 had satin and also mirrored surfaces and the 37 was mirror,
brain was in matte mode.

My primary expertise is in U.S. Mint History, I gain experience while researching and writing a book.
I have an insatiable desire to figure things out.

The help of individuals who already have an expertise in a series adds a great value to the books
and to the readers. I also like these individuals writing their perspective, even if it is in conflict with mine
as it adds a new dimension to the books.

I just learned of the 27 matte, have not examined or studied one, does anyone know of the history,
where they came from, how many, how have they been verified.

Never heard of the 35 satin proofs, does anyone know about these.

These obviously should be included in a book on Buffalo nickel proofs (probably should be proofs, not matte proofs as
it has been expanded.)

Thanks
Kevin

kevinjflynn@yahoo.com
kevinj50@comcast.net
www.kevinjflynn.com

commoncents05

Kevin, Here is a Link to a Heritage listing for a Specimen 1927.

I have never heard of a 1935 Satin, and I think it might just be a typo.

-Paul

BUFFNIXX

The 1927 coin shown in the Heritage auction is called a specimen striking and so the grade is given as SP-65. Does something like this even belong in a book on buffalo nickel proofs? If you examine the large blow-up photos of the Heritage coin linked to here, it sure does look exaclty like a matte proof. I think PCGS KNEW IT WAS A PROOF but gave it the "specimen" or "SP" tag so as not to instantly make the buffalo proof set near impossible to complete. Imagine all registry set buff proof collectors having to compete for one of the five known 1927 special or specimen striking coins in order to have a complete set. So since this coin is not a "proof" but rather a "specimen" then no need to worry, you registry guys do not need it for your registry sets!! But, to quote an old saying: "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck". In short, this 1927 buffalo is a PROOF no matter what anyone else calls it. Look at these pictures and you will hear: "QUACK QUACK QUACK!!!"

Steve

<< <i>wonder if he will be doing a piece on the 1935 satin finsh proof. >>




Buffnixx,
Do you have any reference to the 1935 satin finish proof you referenced above? Is it similiar to the 1917 MPL? As far as PCGS calling the 1927 a specimen instead of a proof so as to not make the Buffalo proof Set Registry collectors mad, what about all the Lincoln cent collectors who must find one of the three 1958 DD's in order to complete a PCGS Lincoln cent collection with major varieties.
Steve

kevinj

Thanks for the info on the 27, interesting stuff.
Would be cool to do a side by side analysis of the surface texture, rims, edges, corners, design elements
to see sharpness. Anyone knows who has one.

Thanks
Kevin

coinguy1

<< <i>The 1927 coin shown in the Heritage auction is called a specimen striking and so the grade is given as SP-65. Does something like this even belong in a book on buffalo nickel proofs? If you examine the large blow-up photos of the Heritage coin linked to here, it sure does look exaclty like a matte proof. I think PCGS KNEW IT WAS A PROOF but gave it the "specimen" or "SP" tag so as not to instantly make the buffalo proof set near impossible to complete. Imagine all registry set buff proof collectors having to compete for one of the five known 1927 special or specimen striking coins in order to have a complete set. So since this coin is not a "proof" but rather a "specimen" then no need to worry, you registry guys do not need it for your registry sets!! But, to quote an old saying: "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck". In short, this 1927 buffalo is a PROOF no matter what anyone else calls it. Look at these pictures and you will hear: "QUACK QUACK QUACK!!!" >>

I have seen more than one of the 1927 Specimen pieces in hand, at NGC when I graded there, and subsequent to that, in the case of the Heritage coin mentioned above. And, while they look different from circulation strikes, they do not display the texture or surfaces of Matte Proofs or of Brilliant Proofs. They are much more similar to the Satin Proofs of 1936.

My guess is that they are labeled Specimens, rather than Proofs, because of lack of official documentation for their production, not because of Registry Set considerations.

kevinj

[I have seen more than one of the 1927 Specimen pieces in hand, at NGC when I graded there, and subsequent to that, in the case of the Heritage coin mentioned above. And, while they look different from circulation strikes, they do not display the texture or surfaces of Matte Proofs or of Brilliant Proofs. They are much more similar to the Satin Proofs of 1936.
My guess is that they are labeled Specimens, rather than Proofs, because of lack of official documentation for their production, not because of Registry Set considerations. >>



Hi Mark,

When considering the texture of a satin proof, what differentiates a satin surface from what we would see on an EDS business die.

For a mirrored proof, the surface of the dies are polished to give them a mirrored surface, sometimes the planchets were also polished.
Obviously as the dies were incused, the primary surface area the would have polished was the fields.
Brilliant proofs have mirrored surfaces, primarily on the fields, there are also variations on cameos...

Matte proofs were primarily created because the engravers found some die types difficult to polish because of the curvature of the
fields, for example the early Lincoln cents. Matte or sandblast proofs are created by running sand across the surface of the working
die, with the end result being a granular surface. Sometimes the coins were also sandblasted.
When the matte proof working die was used over time, the granular surface became smooth, being then categorized as satin proofs,
we see this on the 1911 Lincoln mattes.

Satin proofs display a smooth, non-reflective, fine-grained surface. they generally do not have full luster.
The working dies for satin proofs are not especially treated. There is no post treatment to the coins.
The surfaces should look the same as EDS business strikes.
The primary difference of course is that they were struck on a hydraulic press which could exert more pressure, therefore
more fully striking the design elements, rims, edges, corners.

I agree with your statement that they would not have surfaces which are similar to the matte or brilliant proofs.

Question is when you examined the specimen, did you notice anything different in surface texture, that you might not find
in a EDS business strike.

Or is the only difference in the striking quality?

If no other treatment was used on the dies, could the increased pressure used in the coining press create a recognizable
difference in the surface texture? Could the metal on top of the planchet have been compressed more finely so that it appears
smoother? Having not examined a specimen, I look forward to your analysis and thoughts.

Thanks
Kevin

coinguy1

<< <i>[I have seen more than one of the 1927 Specimen pieces in hand, at NGC when I graded there, and subsequent to that, in the case of the Heritage coin mentioned above. And, while they look different from circulation strikes, they do not display the texture or surfaces of Matte Proofs or of Brilliant Proofs. They are much more similar to the Satin Proofs of 1936.
My guess is that they are labeled Specimens, rather than Proofs, because of lack of official documentation for their production, not because of Registry Set considerations. >>



Hi Mark,

When considering the texture of a satin proof, what differentiates a satin surface from what we would see on an EDS business die.

For a mirrored proof, the surface of the dies are polished to give them a mirrored surface, sometimes the planchets were also polished.
Obviously as the dies were incused, the primary surface area the would have polished was the fields.
Brilliant proofs have mirrored surfaces, primarily on the fields, there are also variations on cameos...

Matte proofs were primarily created because the engravers found some die types difficult to polish because of the curvature of the
fields, for example the early Lincoln cents. Matte or sandblast proofs are created by running sand across the surface of the working
die, with the end result being a granular surface. Sometimes the coins were also sandblasted.
When the matte proof working die was used over time, the granular surface became smooth, being then categorized as satin proofs,
we see this on the 1911 Lincoln mattes.

Satin proofs display a smooth, non-reflective, fine-grained surface. they generally do not have full luster.
The working dies for satin proofs are not especially treated. There is no post treatment to the coins.
The surfaces should look the same as EDS business strikes.
The primary difference of course is that they were struck on a hydraulic press which could exert more pressure, therefore
more fully striking the design elements, rims, edges, corners.

I agree with your statement that they would not have surfaces which are similar to the matte or brilliant proofs.

Question is when you examined the specimen, did you notice anything different in surface texture, that you might not find
in a EDS business strike.

Or is the only difference in the striking quality?

If no other treatment was used on the dies, could the increased pressure used in the coining press create a recognizable
difference in the surface texture? Could the metal on top of the planchet have been compressed more finely so that it appears
smoother? Having not examined a specimen, I look forward to your analysis and thoughts.

Thanks
Kevin >>

Kevin, if only my memory were that good. I do not recall any noticeable differences in surface texture from EDS business strikes, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there.

Changing course for a moment - and I hope this doesn't sound silly - I have long wondered whether there are actually three, as opposed to two varieties of 1936 Proof Buffalo Nickels.

In addition to the typical Brilliant Proofs and Satin Proofs, I have seen a good number of examples (labeled as Satin Proofs) which look like hybrids between those two. They clearly are not fully brilliant like the brilliant Proofs , yet they are also noticeably more flashy and vibrant than most of the satin Proofs. I suppose they are probably just flashy Satin Proofs, but they sure look different and distinct. I'm curious as to whether you and/or others have seen those with such an appearance, and if so, what your thoughts are?

kevinj

Kevin >>

Kevin, if only my memory were that good. I do not recall any noticeable differences in surface texture from EDS business strikes, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there.
Changing course for a moment - and I hope this doesn't sound silly - I have long wondered whether there are actually three, as opposed to two varieties of 1936 Proof Buffalo Nickels.
In addition to the typical Brilliant Proofs and Satin Proofs, I have seen a good number of examples (labeled as Satin Proofs) which look like hybrids between those two. They clearly are not fully brilliant like the brilliant Proofs , yet they are also noticeably more flashy and vibrant than most of the satin Proofs. I suppose they are probably just flashy Satin Proofs, but they sure look different and distinct. I'm curious as to whether you and/or others have seen those with such an appearance, and if so, what your thoughts are? >>



Mark,

On the 36, I have not examined to date, thanks for the update, will be careful to consider the possibility when examining.
Wonder if when they figured out how to make brilliant proofs in 36, did they replace dies as needed, for example replace the
obv with a brilliant polished die, leaving the old satin die and striking together, I doubt and not have heard of this combo.
Second, wonder if they took the satin proof dies and polished them, leaving perhaps some which were not fully polished, and
showing the satiny luster.
Of course, it is always possible that only a small number of the dies were used and that the mirrored finish on the surface of the
working die wore down, displaying the normal satin surface underneath. Will be interesting to figure out. Was the first year
on proofs again, might have made mistakes figuring it out.
All speculation of course at this time, the coins will reveal the history.

Kevin

BWRC

Kevin/Duane

Wishing you guys the best with your new Buffalo Nickel Proof book. I know it will be an interesting read. Hope to see both of you in Boston.

Brian

Duane

<< <i>Kevin/Duane

Wishing you guys the best with your new Buffalo Nickel Proof book. I know it will be an interesting read. Hope to see both of you in Boston.

Brian >>



Brian,

Thank you for your support. It is amazing to me how the thinking at the mint changed so much from the 1913-16 era to the 1936-37 years, and those changes of course are reflected very well in the Buffalo series. Maybe the Buffalo and Lincoln Series more then others, at least from a Proof-making perspective. Because of that, this should be a good educational work (as Kevin's always are).

Looking forward to seeing you in Boston, as well.

Duane

BUFFNIXX

I have one of the so-called satin-brilliant proofs of 1936. It is labeled as a satin proof (64) on the NGC holder but it looks more like a brilliant proof than a satin. Not quite as flashy as the typical 36 brilliant proof but close. It appears to be some kind of a transitional piece when they were going from satin to brilliant. buffnixx

BUFFNIXX

Kevin -- As far as you getting to study one of the 1927 nickels up close and personal that would be kind of tough. All five of them have been slabbed by pcgs and ngc -- so there is no way you would be able to examine the edges and rims of the coins that well. If you look at the one that is contained in the heritage auction archeves where it is listed as SP-65 you can get a geat blowup of both obverse and reverse by enlargeing the photo of the coins. Problem here is that the rubber insert that wraps around the coin is horribly ragged and covers up a good bit of the reverse rim. If that would have been my coin it would have been returned for reholdering. But I thik these pictures are going to be the best you will come accross and they are really of high quality. buffnixx

BUFFNIXX

Just picked up a new copy of Ron Pope's book on Abraded Die Buffalo Nickels. An outstanding book. Ron used Heritage's photos of the 1927 specimen nickel and your eye is immediately drawn to the ragged edges of the rubber insert on the reverse picture. It overlaps the coins edges a signficant amount. Maybe their is a way to minimize this thru a photoshop editing program. You have to use this picture though. buffnixx

leothelyon

And thank you for an interesting read here and from the Heritage archives. Interesting how the owner at $47,000 doesn't share that same interest in seeing that die crack at 8:00. Similar to how some collect labels, oops, I meant coins! (A pun not intended for anyone here at the moment)

I would also like to add that, I thought Satin Proofs could be seen up to 1950. Where both Satin and Brilliant proofs could be collected for the 1942-P and the 1950 proofs?

And lastly, I found it interesting how worn the master die had become by 1927. However strong the strike looks to some, the details along those edges of the letters and date have really rounded up, giving the strike a softer appearance.


Leo

coinguy1

<< <i>And thank you for an interesting read here and from the Heritage archives. Interesting how the owner at $47,000 doesn't share that same interest in seeing that die crack at 8:00. Similar to how some collect labels, oops, I meant coins! (A pun not intended for anyone here at the moment)

I would also like to add that, I thought Satin Proofs could be seen up to 1950. Where both Satin and Brilliant proofs could be collected for the 1942-P and the 1950 proofs?

And lastly, I found it interesting how worn the master die had become by 1927. However strong the strike looks to some, the details along those edges of the letters and date have really rounded up, giving the strike a softer appearance.


Leo >>

Are you suggesting, that just because the die crack at 8:00 can't be seen, due to the holder, the buyer might be (or is necessarily) a label collector? It sure sounds like you are, though I hope not. That is, unless you somehow know that about him. The coin stands on its own merits, and those of the company that graded it, with or without a view of the die-crack.

leothelyon

<< <i>

<< <i>And thank you for an interesting read here and from the Heritage archives. Interesting how the owner at $47,000 doesn't share that same interest in seeing that die crack at 8:00. Similar to how some collect labels, oops, I meant coins! (A pun not intended for anyone here at the moment)

I would also like to add that, I thought Satin Proofs could be seen up to 1950. Where both Satin and Brilliant proofs could be collected for the 1942-P and the 1950 proofs?

And lastly, I found it interesting how worn the master die had become by 1927. However strong the strike looks to some, the details along those edges of the letters and date have really rounded up, giving the strike a softer appearance.


Leo >>

Are you suggesting, that just because the die crack at 8:00 can't be seen, due to the holder, the buyer might be (or is necessarily) a label collector? It sure sounds like you are, though I hope not. That is, unless you somehow know that about him. The coin stands on its own merits, and those of the company that graded it, with or without a view of the die-crack. >>



Yes, you read it right! I would be very interested in seeing that die crack, that diagnostic detail that separates that coin from the rest, comparing it to the earlier proofs. It's hard to imagine a true collector especially one that unloaded that kind of money, wouldn't want to see that die crack.

TeThe coin stands on its own merits, and those of the company that graded it, with or without a view of the die-crack.xt

Statement doesn't make any sense at all! Whether it's a die crack, variety, error, you're saying it shouldn't matter if the true collector can see the detail that makes the coin for what he paid extra for as long as TGs says so? Doesn't sound like having fun with coin collecting at all.

Leo

coinguy1

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>And thank you for an interesting read here and from the Heritage archives. Interesting how the owner at $47,000 doesn't share that same interest in seeing that die crack at 8:00. Similar to how some collect labels, oops, I meant coins! (A pun not intended for anyone here at the moment)

I would also like to add that, I thought Satin Proofs could be seen up to 1950. Where both Satin and Brilliant proofs could be collected for the 1942-P and the 1950 proofs?

And lastly, I found it interesting how worn the master die had become by 1927. However strong the strike looks to some, the details along those edges of the letters and date have really rounded up, giving the strike a softer appearance.


Leo >>

Are you suggesting, that just because the die crack at 8:00 can't be seen, due to the holder, the buyer might be (or is necessarily) a label collector? It sure sounds like you are, though I hope not. That is, unless you somehow know that about him. The coin stands on its own merits, and those of the company that graded it, with or without a view of the die-crack. >>



Yes, you read it right! I would be very interested in seeing that die crack, that diagnostic detail that separates that coin from the rest, comparing it to the earlier proofs. It's hard to imagine a true collector especially one that unloaded that kind of money, wouldn't want to see that die crack.

TeThe coin stands on its own merits, and those of the company that graded it, with or without a view of the die-crack.xt

Statement doesn't make any sense at all! Whether it's a die crack, variety, error, you're saying it shouldn't matter if the true collector can see the detail that makes the coin for what he paid extra for as long as TGs says so? Doesn't sound like having fun with coin collecting at all.

Leo >>

I'm saying that whether the die crack is visible in the current holder or not, the coin looks very different from a business strike. There is a lot more to its special nature than the die crack.

The fact that that particular aspect of it happens to be very important to you, shouldn't mean another collector needs to care about it in order not to be insulted as a "label collector". For all we know, the buyer might have discussed the coin and die crack with someone at the grading company. Either way, it seems quite unfair and in bad taste to insult another collector, just because he doesn't care about the same things you do. Especially when you don't know him or anything about him.

leothelyon

Well, I went to the Heritage archives in hopes of seeing the die crack in question and although I came across only one NGC 1916 coin that showed some cracks along the top of the rail of the rim, I have nothing to compare it to. Now...why is that? Should I care? Since this guy doesn't post here, at least I'm assuming that, since this is the first time I'm learning about this coin......... Why discuss something that someone owns who hasn't cared to share with the numismatic hobby of collecting coins, at least I'm assuming he looks at his coins as a hobby, something to take pride in and not for sheer investment purposes only, but why would I think that......I've never heard of this person. Because someone has money to buy such expensive items, I'm suppose to have great respect for someone like that? I wouldn't call it insulting but rather a show of interest and perhaps a free education if they're paying any attention.


Leo

coinguy1

<< <i>Well, I went to the Heritage archives in hopes of seeing the die crack in question and although I came across only one NGC 1916 coin that showed some cracks along the top of the rail of the rim, I have nothing to compare it to. Now...why is that? Should I care? Since this guy doesn't post here, at least I'm assuming that, since this is the first time I'm learning about this coin......... Why discuss something that someone owns who hasn't cared to share with the numismatic hobby of collecting coins, at least I'm assuming he looks at his coins as a hobby, something to take pride in and not for sheer investment purposes only, but why would I think that......I've never heard of this person. Because someone has money to buy such expensive items, I'm suppose to have great respect for someone like that? I wouldn't call it insulting but rather a show of interest and perhaps a free education if they're paying any attention.


Leo >>

No one said you should have "great respect for someone like that", or anything close to that. And if you don't think it's insulting to call someone a "label collector", based on your thought that he doesn't care about a diagnostic that you (a non-Buffalo Nickel collector) do, we will have to agree to disagree.

leothelyon

It's too bad this person is too busy or restrained somehow from joining the discussion. Heck, they might have been able to provide some useful info for a book that was mentioned here.


Leo

BUFFNIXX

The die crack on the reverse rim at 8 o'clock is an integral part of the coins characteristics. I would have gone nuts if this were my coin and it were returned to me in such a shoddy holder like this 1927 specimen strike shown on Heritage was. AndI have seen other coins from pcgs with the same problem. The old anacs used to have a similar problem with their little white inserts with extra pieces of plastic overlapping the coin in a smililar fashion. I have come to admire the ngc edgeview holder which really gives the coin a beautiful presentation.
tom arch
buffnixx