Is the 1914/3 Buffalo real??

Rollfinder78

Down in Baltimore I picked up a 1914 Buffalo in AU 58 that really looked like an over-date to me. I walked around the floor and checked out 2 certified examples, both of which looked the same to mine. I then found an unattributed example that quiet honestly looked better than the ones certified as such.

So i look around the Heritage Archives and it seems ALL of them have what it looks like the top of the 3.

SO is it real or just part of the regular 1914 series?

braddick

Yea.

Rampage

Depends on who you ask. PCGS/NGC will only certify a certain variety. SEGS will attribute all of them. I have one in a PCGS VF25 holder, but the variety is not listed. I need to crack it and send it to SEGS to have the variety listed on it. I do not know if ANACS will do it or not.

TwoSides2aCoin

If it's not real, then the nearly 3 grand I paid for one was not real, either.

Rampage

I am not looking at my references at the moment, but I believe some have claimed it is not an underlying 3, but rather an effect from a die clash. Hopefully, one of the Buff nuts will chime in.

Shamika

<< <i>So i look around the Heritage Archives and it seems ALL of them have what it looks like the top of the 3. >>



Finally, somebody other than me sees it as well. To me it has always looked as though every 1914 has a horizontal bar across the top of the 4.

Shamika

<< <i>I believe some have claimed it is not an underlying 3, but rather an effect from a die clash. >>



Hmmm... I have not heard this theory. I'm not aware of any die clash ever appearing around any date on this series so I'm not sure this explains it.

Rampage

<< <i>

<< <i>I believe some have claimed it is not an underlying 3, but rather an effect from a die clash. >>



Hmmm... I have not heard this theory. I'm not aware of any die clash ever appearing around any date on this series so I'm not sure this explains it. >>


I will try to locate my reference this weekend and read up on it. I might be wrong, but like I said, I was not looking at my references.

breakdown

David Hall has expressed skepticism about this "error" and I tend to agree that it is so minimal in comparison to the biggie Buffalo errors, it borders on irrelevant. To be fair, I am a Buffalo collector that has never had that much interest in the errors.

Shamika

<< <i>David Hall has expressed skepticism about this "error" and I tend to agree that it is so minimal in comparison to the biggie Buffalo errors, it borders on irrelevant. To be fair, I am a Buffalo collector that has never had that much interest in the errors. >>



I'm in the same boat. This is my single favorite series and this over-date has never interested me.

keets

can someone supply us with a close-up picture???

GrumpyEd

It can be on the P and S coins.

The old CPG said that specialists believe it may be from a master die and that could mean that many different working dies had it.
Not sure if they updated any info in the newer CPG.

keets

If it's not real, then the nearly 3 grand I paid for one was not real, either.

uh oh............................

crypto79

<< <i>If it's not real, then the nearly 3 grand I paid for one was not real, either. >>



That 3k might not be real any longer

Rollfinder78

does anyone have a 1914 buffalo that has no trace of the horizontal bar?

tincup

A controversial variety.

Owned a ANACS certified example at one time, but sold it after holding about a year... not comfortable having much money tied up in this variety.

Type2

<< <i>does anyone have a 1914 buffalo that has no trace of the horizontal bar? >>

Will this help?

keets

FWIW, at a show this afternoon I was at a dealer table that had the Variety in holder and several raw coins from VF-MS. the designated Variety definitely looked different than any of the raw coins which showed nothing that I could even "imagine" mimicked the 1914/3 that was graded.

giantsfan20

link

The 14/3 is on page 128 and upward

The Authoritative Reference on Buffalo Nickels By John Wexler, Ron Pope, Kevin Flynn

messydesk

ANACS will not label any of them 14/3. While there is not universal agreement on this, their conclusion is that it's in the master die.

keets

ANACS will not label any of them 14/3. While there is not universal agreement on this, their conclusion is that it's in the master die.

I can't comment on the whether or not it's an overdate, but judging only from the half-dozen coins I looked at today it isn't a "Master Die" anomaly as you say ANACS stated; if that were the case it would be on every working die and traces of it on MDS coins should be clearly evident. the coin picture in this thread bears that out. on a humorous note, I find it ironic that ANACS won't slab these when you consider everything they will slab.

rec78

I vote no. If it was real why wasn't it discovered earlier? Almost every U.S. coin has been scrutinized over and over and over by numismatists for many years, especially the date and mint mark areas. I need more of the overdate to be seen to declare it to be a real overdate. Although I have not examined a supposed 1914/13 buffalo nickel in person yet, until I see one in person I will not be convinced and even then may not be. If you have to imagine it is there, it ain't there.

Bob

TwoSides2aCoin

I bought the coin, not the slab.

koynekwest

<< <i>I am not looking at my references at the moment, but I believe some have claimed it is not an underlying 3, but rather an effect from a die clash. Hopefully, one of the Buff nuts will chime in. >>



Most assuredly not from a clash. All known dies have effacement lines around the top of the "4" which was an attempt to remove the underdigit. All are in a pattern unique to each individual die.

koynekwest

<< <i>It can be on the P and S coins.

The old CPG said that specialists believe it may be from a master die and that could mean that many different working dies had it.
Not sure if they updated any info in the newer CPG. >>



Not a master die but an overdated working hub. Working hubs produce individual dies.

messydesk

<< <i>I find it ironic that ANACS won't slab these when you consider everything they will slab. >>


Why? If they've done research, examining far more coins than you or I have, that leads them to the conclusion that this what they say it is, then there's no reason to slab them as anything special. There's also the fact that there are price guides showing a premium for these. The CPG cites a specific die pair as having a large premium, but with multiple die pairs existing and the method for differentiating them, especially in circulated grades, not being clear, there's no reason to expose yourself to that. I don't believe CONECA recognizes the 14/3 overdate, either.

kevinj

Ron Pope, John Wexler and I list 5 different die varieties of the 1914/3 Buffalo nickel overdate in our book, The Authoritative Reference on Buffalo Nickels.

The belief is that one of the 1913 obverse working hubs (raised images) had the date abraded down, was then used to strike a new master die, which thereafter the 1914 date was punched in.

1914/3 Die #1 (DDO-001) has a very pronounced top right corner that is seen above the right side of the top of the 4. There are also portions of the 3 believed to be below the center crossbar. The top crossbar of the 3 is believed to be to the left of the top of the 4.

For all 5 of the die varieties believed to be 4/3, there are unique die scratches across the top of the 4, and diagonal in front of the diagonal bar of the 4. It is believed that these were an attempt to remove remnants of the 3 that were visible.

I have close up photos in the book of all 5 die varieties.

I will see if I can upload one or two tonight.

I need to go back and do overlays as I do not see any in the book.

Kevin

AUandAG

Here's a picture I took of my neighbors.

MS64

koynekwest

Currently, there are 13 different dies known-some with a more evident underdigit; some with a barely discernible one. Our hosts will attribute this as an overdate, and it was first publicly reported by Bill Fivaz, who, I believe, knows his varieties. My book lists each of these dies with die markers and showing the unique effacement marks of each die. I had lots of help from Brian Ribar of NCADD listing and numbering each die. I believe one reason most slabbing companies won't attribute the variety may be due to taking the time and effort to properly attribute each die.

TwoFeathers

Here's an ANACS example:

LINK

telephoto1

<< <i>

I bought the coin, not the slab.

>>



Nice piece, and easily the strongest example I've seen. Congrats.

keets

Why? If they've done research, examining far more coins than you or I have, that leads them to the conclusion that this what they say it is, then there's no reason to slab them as anything special.

two points:
1. my post was a poke at ANACS since they have gone a long way to make themselves easily dismissed over the past decade.
2. in a strange twist, one member reports that they won't encapsulate the Variety and another links an eBay auction with the Variety in a relatively recent ANACS holder.

I digress..................

tradedollarnut

Real or not, it does nothing for me. The only good overdate is a bold repunching that shows both digits. JMHO.

keets

that's what makes the '55 DDO Lincoln so cool.

messydesk

<< <i>2. in a strange twist, one member reports that they won't encapsulate the Variety and another links an eBay auction with the Variety in a relatively recent ANACS holder. >>


The "Quick Release" holder shown dates to 2006. I don't know exactly when ANACS decided to pull the plug on the 1914/3 Buffalo, but they no longer recognize it.

TwoSides2aCoin

<< <i>Real or not, it does nothing for me. The only good overdate is a bold repunching that shows both digits. JMHO. >>


I agree in part with what is a good overdate. As such, the specimen previously posted was the only example I'd seen, which did something for me. (or to me, as it were)

koynekwest

It certainly isn't one of the better overdates and the fact that it involves several dies diminishes it's desirability. Some dies show a very weak underdigit, which may lead the observer to come to the conclusion that none are any good. Two or three dies show a distinct underdigit and, as I have stated before here a nice EDS example of Dies 1, 2, or 6 easily equal the 1942-D 2/1 dime and 1943 3/2 nickel IMHO. I also posted an image of a clear overdate a couple of years ago. Unlike 19th century overdates that usually have one digit punched over another, 20th century overdates are caused by hubbing errors.

If this variety was restricted to a single die, like the 18/17, values would be much higher that they currently are.

kevinj

I tried to attached files here, could not
Can I send someone the 2 photos so they can upload, email me at kevinjswim@yahoo.com

Kevin

gonzer

<< <i>Real or not, it does nothing for me. The only good overdate is a bold repunching that shows both digits. JMHO. >>



I've always thought that the '55 should be the top line on an eye chart.

oldsubguru

<< <i>Ron Pope, John Wexler and I list 5 different die varieties of the 1914/3 Buffalo nickel overdate in our book, The Authoritative Reference on Buffalo Nickels.

The belief is that one of the 1913 obverse working hubs (raised images) had the date abraded down, was then used to strike a new master die, which thereafter the 1914 date was punched in.

1914/3 Die #1 (DDO-001) has a very pronounced top right corner that is seen above the right side of the top of the 4. There are also portions of the 3 believed to be below the center crossbar. The top crossbar of the 3 is believed to be to the left of the top of the 4.

For all 5 of the die varieties believed to be 4/3, there are unique die scratches across the top of the 4, and diagonal in front of the diagonal bar of the 4. It is believed that these were an attempt to remove remnants of the 3 that were visible.

I have close up photos in the book of all 5 die varieties.

I will see if I can upload one or two tonight.

I need to go back and do overlays as I do not see any in the book.

Kevin >>



Kevin - the date was not punched in but engraved. The last punched in date was 1908

kevinj

<< <i>Kevin - the date was not punched in but engraved. The last punched in date was 1908 >>



I agree that 1908 was the last year the date was punched into each working die.

Thereafter, the choice was to make part of the Galvano, or punch/engrave into master die (design elements incused).

It is believed that for some periods, parts of the date was part of the Galvano, so it could be used for several years.

For example, it is believed the Galvano was not redone for the Lincoln cent from 1909 though 1916.

Kevin

oldsubguru

From my understanding, the galvano was never used after 1909 on the Lincoln cent. It was always the progression of the last year's master hub, with X amount of digits abraded, that made the next year's master die. That was when the missing numerals were engraved into the master die.

This constant use of last year's master hub to make new master dies for the next year spread the obverse design elements towards the rim until the obverse was finally modified and new galvano was used in 1969.

The Jarvis reduction lathe was a very slow process, taking up to several days to complete an incomplete design transfer onto a master hub. Even after that transfer, the master hub still needed refinement at the hands of the mint's engraver which even made that process longer. The master hub to master die process was a lot faster and more economical in the long run.

kevinj

<< <i>From my understanding, the galvano was never used after 1909 on the Lincoln cent. It was always the progression of the last year's master hub, with X amount of digits abraded, that made the next year's master die. That was when the missing numerals were engraved into the master die.
This constant use of last year's master hub to make new master dies for the next year spread the obverse design elements towards the rim until the obverse was finally modified and new galvano was used in 1969.
The Jarvis reduction lathe was a very slow process, taking up to several days to complete an incomplete design transfer onto a master hub. Even after that transfer, the master hub still needed refinement at the hands of the mint's engraver which even made that process longer. The master hub to master die process was a lot faster and more economical in the long run. >>



A new Lincoln cent Galvano obverse was made in 1916, and the reverse in 1917. New details were added to the hair, facial hair, and other design elements. The obvious differences can be seen when comparing proofs between 1915 and 1916 as can be seen in my Lincoln Cent Matte Proof book.

The Janvier reducing lathe replaced the Hill Reducing Lathe in 1907.

In 1837, Mint Director Patterson reported that both the half dime and dime were reduced from a large model to a die in a single afternoon using the new French Portrait Lathe. In reading analysis over the years, it did not take more than a day.

Any retouching I have read about was only minor. These reducing lathes were very controlled and very detailed. Some of the benefits of the Janvier over the Hill was that it could work with models which were larger, and also work in different heights of relief.

I agree that in 1909, the Galvano contained two digits of the date, and thereby permitting the master hub (raised elements) to be used for several years to hub master dies, punching/engraving the second two digits into the master die for each new year. There would be no abrading necessary on either the master die or master hub.

Kevin

oldsubguru

looking over James Wiles notes on the obverse Lincoln cent dies, there is no mention of a new galvano being introduced. Here is that part.

Lincoln Cent Obverse Design Changes

1909 – Original MH-1 (4 digits)
Slanted lower interior vest line, notch in W, pointed first 1 of date
No necklines, small triangle inside tall triangle at lower front vest
1910 – Original MH-2 (4 digits) based on MH-1
No vest line, notch in W, large 1s and 0 of date
No necklines, one tall triangle at lower front vest
1911 – Original MH-3 (4 digits) based on MH-2
No vest line, No notch in W, standard hair detail, flat top 1s of date
No necklines, one tall triangle at lower front vest
1912 – Original MH-4 (4 digits), based on MH-2
Slanted lower interior vest line, notch in W, enhanced hair detail, flat top first 1 of date
Necklines, one tall triangle at lower front vest
1913 – MH-4 (2 or 3 digits)
1914 – MH-4 (2 or 3 digits)
1915 – Original MH-5 (2 or 3 digits) based on MH-4
Slanted lower interior vest line, notch in W, enhanced hair detail, flat top first 1 of date
Necklines, one tall triangle at lower front vest
Coat collar strengthened
1916 – Original MH-6 (4 digits) based on MH-5
Short slanted vest line, notch in W, additional enhanced hair detail, flat top first 1 of date
Necklines, one tall triangle at lower front vest
Coat collar strengthened
1917 – MH-6 (2 or 3 digits)
1918 – Original MH-7 (4 digits) based on MH-6
Short slanted vest line, notch in W, additional enhanced hair detail, flat top first 1 of date
Necklines, one tall triangle at lower front vest, V.D.B. on shoulder
Coat collar strengthened
1919 – Original MH-8 (4 digits) based on MH-7
Short slanted vest line, notch in W, additional enhanced hair detail, flat top first 1 of date
Necklines, one tall triangle at lower front vest, V.D.B. on shoulder
Enhanced upper vest under the tie
1920 – Original MH-9 (4 digits) based on MH-8
Notch in W, additional enhanced hair detail, flat top first 1 of date
Necklines, V.D.B. on shoulder
Redesigned front vest from top to bottom.

I will make one correction to my statement and that is the Janvier reduction lathe instead of the Jarvis (not even sure where that name popped up), which was introduced in 1907 and use for the rest of the 20th century. As for the process of transferring design elements, it was much easier and faster to use the master hub to make the master die than to use a reduction lathe. As stated the French Portrait reduction lathe took from one and a half days to two days to make the transfer to the master hub

kevinj

<< <i>looking over James Wiles notes on the obverse Lincoln cent dies, there is no mention of a new galvano being introduced. Here is that part.
I will make one correction to my statement and that is the Janvier reduction lathe instead of the Jarvis (not even sure where that name popped up), which was introduced in 1907 and use for the rest of the 20th century. As for the process of transferring design elements, it was much easier and faster to use the master hub to make the master die than to use a reduction lathe. As stated the French Portrait reduction lathe took from one and a half days to two days to make the transfer to the master hub >>



Simply looking at the coins, you can visually see the change in the design elements, not just adding, or removing, but changing, which meant a new Galvano in 1916.

French Portrait lathe took one afternoon in 1837, where do you get one and a half to two days? Where did you get your information about the master hub requiring a lot of work after being reduced?

Think about your statement about transferring from master hub to master die being faster. First you get the master hub, put it in the hubbing press with a coned shaped blank, press master hub into blank. Remove partially hubbed blank, let sit, anneal for certain period, then place back into hubbing press, properly aligned, hub again. For large dies you hub multiple times, this might also be required to make sure you get the strongest details. This probably took several hours to complete, they were not able to do one shot hubbings until the 1990s.
This is approximately the same amount of time to transfer the image in a portrait lathe.

Kevin

Aspie_Rocco

Bringing back an old thread to hopefully get some attributed photos and more current opinions.

CaptHenway

I still believe in the variety.
MOO