Refuted 1914/3 Buffalo Nickel by Kevin Flynn
kevinj
Posts: 972 ✭✭✭
I just did a completed study of the 1914/3 Buffalo nickels, and concluded that these are not overdates.
John Wexler had recently drawn the same conclusion.
Close up photographs and overlays show that the metal around the top of the 4 is not in the shape or size of the 3, and inconsistent in shape and size between the different varieties.
If anyone would like to see a PDF of this article, please write me at [email protected]
Looking for feedback, and/or alternative perspectives
Thanks
Kevin
John Wexler had recently drawn the same conclusion.
Close up photographs and overlays show that the metal around the top of the 4 is not in the shape or size of the 3, and inconsistent in shape and size between the different varieties.
If anyone would like to see a PDF of this article, please write me at [email protected]
Looking for feedback, and/or alternative perspectives
Thanks
Kevin
Kevin J Flynn
0
Comments
<< <i>this is good news for the Hobby, bad news for some collectors and an embarrassment for TPG's, but overall I think it was expected. thanks for your hard work. >>
NGC will not certify this as an overdate, and have not done so for the past 10 years.
PCGS is on the fence, and will currently still certify two of these as overdates.
I believe the Red Book will still leave these listed as an overdate until the hobby as a whole decides.
Thanks
Kevin
Any theories on what the ridges actually are?
I'll be curious to read what Ron Pope has to say about this study.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
<< <i>Thanks Kevin. Welcome news for some... but not so welcome for others.
Any theories on what the ridges actually are? >>
Still trying to figure out what the extra metal was, and why they were trying to remove.
But the die scratches brings up other questions, such as
Why the abrading above the 4 in the field
Why few or almost none on the back side of the 4 where the top of the 3 should be
Why no die scratches on the bottom of the 4
Why abrading for some in front of the lower part of the diagonal of the 4, when overlayed, nothing in front of there.
Kevin
<< <i>I have looked at this variety for years and just could not convince myself that it was the real deal. I'm glad to see a more in-depth study was completed.
I'll be curious to read what Ron Pope has to say about this study. >>
I know that some still believe it is including Ron Pope, Bill Fivaz, and Tom Delorey
James Wiles is also doing an independent study on the same topic on behalf of CONECA.
Kevin
<< <i>There have been plenty of skeptics, including David Hall. That overdate always took a lot of imagination and squinting of the eyes. >>
Cherry Picker's Guide lists this as an overdate
I believe David Lange lists it as an overdate in his Buffalo book.
In 1999, John Wexler, Ron Pope, and I listed 5 of these as overdates in our Treasure Hunting Buffalo nickels
In 2007, John, Ron, and I delisted two of them as overdates, added two new ones as overdates, in our Authoritative Reference on Buffalo nickels
In speaking with some of the TPG guys, they also following to some extent the research of those experts in the hobby, which, if I were in there shoes, would do an independent determination, but would also follow in part what is accepted in the hobby. This is why PCGS only certifies two as overdates currently, but were on the fence about it.
John Wexler recently studied these and concluded these were not overdates.
This sparked the discussion, I dove into this completely to figure out if they were.
Kevin
<< <i>But SEGS still grades them! They must be legit >>
LOL, will send Larry the article to see what he thinks
I have a lot of respect for Larry's opinions.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
<< <i>I have looked at this variety for years and just could not convince myself that it was the real deal. I'm glad to see a more in-depth study was completed.
>>
I concur
<< <i>ANACS had come to the conclusion several years ago that anything resembling an overdate was in the master die as it shows up for all mints. They have not attributed them as such since then. CONECA also does not list this variety. >>
As Mr. Flynn, Bill Fivaz and others and I have discussed in an ongoing email discussion concerning this topic, there is another way that similar overdates can occur on multiple working dies without it being an overdated working hub.
When a die was hubbed back in that era, it was normal for the first impression to be incomplete. For example, everybody please look at the picture of the 1916/1916 doubled die nickel in the Redbook (Bill Fivaz's former coin). See how the first 1916 was not completely formed, and fades out an equal distance from the rim? The second impression was then complete.
Suppose for the sake of argument that a batch of working dies (10? who knows, but it is logical to assume that dies were hubbed in batches) was incompletely first hubbed with the impressions extending out to the tops of the 3's, just slightly less than the first impression on the 1916 DDO die.
For whatever reason the dies were not finished as 1913 dies, but rather were finished as 1914 dies. The only remnants of the 3's would be the tops of the 3's. The die shop might then have attempted to remove or disguise the tops of the 3's by tooling the dies, and indeed many of the 1914/3 dies do show tooling in this area.
This is just my theory, but I do sincerely believe that at least some of the 1914/3 dies are true overdates. Mr. Flynn has his theory that they are not. The collecting hobby is free to choose which theory to believe.
Tom D.
It's not saying that they agree with the cause of it or what it is, it's only saying that it's from the die or dies listed in the book.
<< <i>
<< <i>I have looked at this variety for years and just could not convince myself that it was the real deal. I'm glad to see a more in-depth study was completed.
>>
I concur >>
+1
IMHO-- it ain't an overdate unless you clearly differentiate both dates.
<< <i>I think the easy solution for TPGs is to only put the FS number on the slab.
It's not saying that they agree with the cause of it or what it is, it's only saying that it's from the die or dies listed in the book. >>
if their policy is to guarantee it, they essentially say they agree with it. if they put stuff in their holders they didn't guarantee, they would need to change it from pcgs to cgs or another 3 letter tpg
.
<--- look what's behind the mask! - cool link 1/NO ~ 2/NNP ~ 3/NNC ~ 4/CF ~ 5/PG ~ 6/Cert ~ 7/NGC 7a/NGC pop~ 8/NGCF ~ 9/HA archives ~ 10/PM ~ 11/NM ~ 12/ANACS cert ~ 13/ANACS pop - report fakes 1/ACEF ~ report fakes/thefts 1/NCIS - Numi-Classes SS ~ Bass ~ Transcribed Docs NNP - clashed coins - error training - V V mm styles -
<< <i>I just did a completed study of the 1914/3 Buffalo nickels, and concluded that these are not overdates.
John Wexler had recently drawn the same conclusion.
Close up photographs and overlays show that the metal around the top of the 4 is not in the shape or size of the 3, and inconsistent in shape and size between the different varieties.
If anyone would like to see a PDF of this article, please write me at [email protected]
Looking for feedback, and/or alternative perspectives
Thanks
Kevin >>
I discussed this variety at length with Mike Ellis, and he believed that since the obverse of of the strongest ones showed massive clashing, the overdate was related to that and not actually an overdate.
<< <i>If I had a nickel for every time somebody refuted something, I'd have a half dime. >>
How many times have you seen people refute their own designation?
Kevin
I too have BEEN SAYIN THIS FOR YEARS!
i always thought this variety consisted of a lethal combination of imagination and wishful thinking. Kind of like a flea circus.
<< <i>I discussed this variety at length with Mike Ellis, and he believed that since the obverse of of the strongest ones showed massive clashing, the overdate was related to that and not actually an overdate. >>
On 1914/3 DDO-001, there is strong die clashing of EPU seen on the obverse under the chin. on the reverse, clashing is seen to the left of EPU.
There is no clashing in or around the date. The shape of the metal is no where near any reverse design element, letter or anything else. It has absolutely nothing to do with clashing.
There is no clashing on 1914/3 DDO-002, which is the same as the FS.
Kevin
<< <i>GOOD WORK. Thank you`
I too have BEEN SAYIN THIS FOR YEARS!
i always thought this variety consisted of a lethal combination of imagination and wishful thinking. Kind of like a flea circus. >>
I believe the mistake that myself and others made was looking at this in general, whereas on some of them it has the general shape and size of the 3.
But when you study the details, it is obvious that it cannot be a 3 as it has no part of the metal that matches the outline of the 3.
Kevin
<< <i>
<< <i>GOOD WORK. Thank you`
I too have BEEN SAYIN THIS FOR YEARS!
i always thought this variety consisted of a lethal combination of imagination and wishful thinking. Kind of like a flea circus. >>
I believe the mistake that myself and others made was looking at this in general, whereas on some of them it has the general shape and size of the 3.
But when you study the details, it is obvious that it cannot be a 3 as it has no part of the metal that matches the outline of the 3.
Kevin >>
One time a few years ago i pointed this out to a well know buffalo nickel specialist who is (was?) a believer in the overdate, and was told, "its there", just distorted due to die erosion, or some thing like that... i didnt buy it ( the story or the coin)
either way, i never found or( bought one). About 10 years back, I purchased an unc roll of 1914 buffs raw OTC from an old timer,. YOU CAN BET I SEARCHED EACH ONE WITH A 20x. alas, not a single one in the roll.
deleted as comment to annother post
I want to thank you for your research into this die variation. And while I have acquired a three legged version, I find little patience with microscopic die variations in Buffalo nickels. I am glad that this one has been debunked. I still do not won a 1955 double die Lincoln cent. But somehow Whitman puts a hole in the album........ Otherwise I am not sure that there would even be a market for these varieties.
OINK
<< <i>
<< <i>I discussed this variety at length with Mike Ellis, and he believed that since the obverse of of the strongest ones showed massive clashing, the overdate was related to that and not actually an overdate. >>
On 1914/3 DDO-001, there is strong die clashing of EPU seen on the obverse under the chin. on the reverse, clashing is seen to the left of EPU.
There is no clashing in or around the date. The shape of the metal is no where near any reverse design element, letter or anything else. It has absolutely nothing to do with clashing.
There is no clashing on 1914/3 DDO-002, which is the same as the FS.
Kevin >>
Correct. The date area is in very high relief on the coin, which means it is very low in the die, and protected from any clashing effect.
There must have been some other reason why the Mint's engravers hand-tooled the same area on 13 different dies.
TD
<< <i>
<< <i>I discussed this variety at length with Mike Ellis, and he believed that since the obverse of of the strongest ones showed massive clashing, the overdate was related to that and not actually an overdate. >>
There is no clashing in or around the date. The shape of the metal is no where near any reverse design element, letter or anything else. >>
I was going to say the same thing.
Not to add to the fire, but I also do not believe clashing has anything to do with the 1937-D 3-legged variety. Likely a clogged die.
<< <i>
<< <i>If I had a nickel for every time somebody refuted something, I'd have a half dime. >>
How many times have you seen people refute their own designation?
Kevin >>
Not many , kind sir. Not many. But, in the interim there is something to "see". Maybe not a 3. But something to see. HRH agrees with you and I boosted that thread, as well. With this same response. I'm going to "rest" my case here.
I know the Masters have chimed in and so have the specialists. And maybe it's not an overdate.
But we must admit that something is there.
<< <i> if their policy is to guarantee it, they essentially say they agree with it. if they put stuff in their holders they didn't guarantee, they would need to change it from pcgs to cgs or another 3 letter tpg >>
I've never heard of any coin like that being bought back under the guarantee.
Is there any case where a TPG paid out a guarantee on a debunked variety, I'm thinking of coins like the 80 D/S cent or other similar cases?
(I don't know the answer)
I think they bought back varieties like micro O dollars but those were fake coins and bought back for being fake.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If I had a nickel for every time somebody refuted something, I'd have a half dime. >>
How many times have you seen people refute their own designation?
Kevin >>
Not many , kind sir. Not many. But, in the interim there is something to "see". Maybe not a 3. But something to see. HRH agrees with you and I boosted that thread, as well. With this same response. I'm going to "rest" my case here.
I know the Masters have chimed in and so have the specialists. And maybe it's not an overdate.
But we must admit that something is there. >>
There are many of us who do believe that it is an overdate. The question is still under discussion.
TD
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I discussed this variety at length with Mike Ellis, and he believed that since the obverse of of the strongest ones showed massive clashing, the overdate was related to that and not actually an overdate. >>
There is no clashing in or around the date. The shape of the metal is no where near any reverse design element, letter or anything else. >>
I was going to say the same thing.
Not to add to the fire, but I also do not believe clashing has anything to do with the 1937-D 3-legged variety. Likely a clogged die. >>
I'm glad you stated your opinion on the 37-D 3 legged error. It's been a pet peeve of mine, albeit a small one, that if in fact the error was caused by one of the more minor flaws in the minting process, such as a clogged/greasey die, why the extreme high value attached to it? We all have come across missing details on coins attributed to this type of error-missing #'s/letters etc. I have many. But since they do not approach the "novelty status" of a 3 legged animal,they fail to garner any high value. But to me a missing # in the date has just as much allure/interest as a missing leg, provided the cause are one and the same for both coins. I tend to value an error more for the RARITY of it's occurance within the minting process (a rarity grade of 1-10 if you will). And I view a greasy/clogged die more in the common occurance area compared to for instance a CUD, I.E. the athiest Lincoln Cent . Of course mintage figures come into play as well if we can determine them for a given error. I tend to favor rarity of occurence(ROO) within the minting process. But in the case of the 3 legged you could have more struck pieces than a scarcer error type, but being that it has the "novelty factor" it will usually command the higher price. I don't mean to belittle anyones collection that is inclusive of the 3 legged, nor do I try to emulate/raise the value of my missing detail coins. My opinion is merely to point out that the"novelty factor" sometimes results in a higher attached value, which in this case for me, is but a common occured error in the minting process. I will now don my armor and duck awaiting your slings and arrows.
<< <i> I will now don my armor and duck awaiting your slings and arrows. >>
Where's that pic of the mob with torches and clubs? LOL
I pretty much agree, grease filled or even over polished or abraded dies are pretty common.
What I think gets attention is a 3 legged animal.
On the 22 plain cent the attention is because there are no 22 plains, if it was a year with plain cents maybe nobody would notice or care.
The other factor is that these got in the books or got a place in folders.
I've always felt that they aren't die varieties since the dies were created normal, they're die states.
People collect things based on their preferences and I won't knock it, everyone has different preferences and it seems there are enough followers to maintain the prices on these at their levels.
OINK
<< <i>
<< <i> if their policy is to guarantee it, they essentially say they agree with it. if they put stuff in their holders they didn't guarantee, they would need to change it from pcgs to cgs or another 3 letter tpg >>
I've never heard of any coin like that being bought back under the guarantee.
Is there any case where a TPG paid out a guarantee on a debunked variety, I'm thinking of coins like the 80 D/S cent or other similar cases?
(I don't know the answer)
I think they bought back varieties like micro O dollars but those were fake coins and bought back for being fake. >>
Good questions
I would think, given the significant price variation of the 1914/3 as compared to a normal price of a 1914, there might be an argument there.
But, I believe the difference would be that at the time it was designated, it was accepted in the hobby, red book, and other places as an overdate,
therefore IMO, they attributed the best they could, given the knowledge and resources they had at the time.
The better option IMO in this case would be attribute to the FS number, which states it is the same variety, but do not put a 4/3
Kevin
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I discussed this variety at length with Mike Ellis, and he believed that since the obverse of of the strongest ones showed massive clashing, the overdate was related to that and not actually an overdate. >>
There is no clashing in or around the date. The shape of the metal is no where near any reverse design element, letter or anything else. >>
I was going to say the same thing.
Not to add to the fire, but I also do not believe clashing has anything to do with the 1937-D 3-legged variety. Likely a clogged die. >>
The 1937-D 3-legged nickel is not the result of a clogged die. It has been proven that parts of the field of the die, which are the highest parts of the die as it is sitting on a work bench, were physically removed. A blob of grease or other material in the leg of the die would not affect the field.
TD
The die you picture looks like it's from one of the weaker dies. Dies # 1, 2, and 6 are much more convincing. And, as you said-the issue is far from resolved. Detailed studies of the variety are occurring right now.
As to the '37-D 3 legged-there's no question that it's from an abraded die-many other die markers othyer than the missing leg indicate that this was the cause.
<< <i>Tom-
The die you picture looks like it's from one of the weaker dies. Dies # 1, 2, and 6 are much more convincing. And, as you said-the issue is far from resolved. Detailed studies of the variety are occurring right now.
As to the '37-D 3 legged-there's no question that it's from an abraded die-many other die markers othyer than the missing leg indicate that this was the cause. >>
Just to clarify, that was not my picture, but one posted by TwoSidesToACoin, that I was commenting on.
TD
IMO, the wrong arguments and criteria was used on this variety. It is argued by different 'experts' that there is no evidence to refute this variety, and the Engraver tooled the around around the 4, it must me something, then taking a leap of faith claiming it is the remnants of a 3.
IMO, the evidence must support the assertion it being an overdate, the shape and size of the underlying metal must be the same shape and size of the that digit. For almost any other overdate on U.S. coins, this basic concept can be used to validate the separate and distinct digits.
Imagination is a good explanation of why this variety was declared an overdate. I was also guilty of using to much imagination when I included them in my books. You see the primary one or two, they have the general appearance of a 3, then you start reaching for others that have die scratches, or similar diagnostics, and declare them also overdates. Its the same concept that if you look at something long enough, you see what you want to see.
In these discusions with others, and to collectors, I say the same thing, if you can show me an example, which has the clear outline of a 3, I am more than willing to examine with an open mind.
Thanks
Kevin
linky
My theory is #3, though I am perfectly willing to listen to other possibilities.
TD