1914/3 buffalo nickel update
kevinj
Posts: 989 ✭✭✭
NGC and ANACS currently do not certify the 1914/3 Buffalo nickel as a valid overdate. They will reference the corresponding FS numbers from Cherry Picker's Guide on their slabs if requested.
I learned to day that
PCGS will no longer certify the 1914/3 Buffalo nickel as a valid overdate.
They will however, continue to verify this variety as its corresponding FS number listed in the Cherry Picker's Guide.
Kevin
I learned to day that
PCGS will no longer certify the 1914/3 Buffalo nickel as a valid overdate.
They will however, continue to verify this variety as its corresponding FS number listed in the Cherry Picker's Guide.
Kevin
Kevin J Flynn
0
Comments
ICG has been doing just this, notice that there is no mention of the 4/3
but they do mention the FS number
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
PCGS will no longer certify the 1914/3 Buffalo nickel as a valid overdate.
They will however, continue to verify this variety as its corresponding FS number listed in the Cherry Picker's Guide."
Will PCGS be verifying this "in print" in some way?
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
<< <i>Will PCGS be verifying this "in print" in some way? >>
I am hoping so, but I am sure we will find out soon enough either way.
will get any recognition.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Another reason to always learn about things in detail before you buy them!
The dealer who has one or more of these for sale is duty bound to make sure that the potential buyer understands the 1914/3 nickel is no longer considered a valid overdate by the TPG's,what the label says notwithstanding.
I see where a 1914/3 nickel is priced at $25,000 in MS65 (Coin World,August 2014).What would be the real price of a delisted 1914/3 nickel in MS65?
Slightly more money than a regular 1914 nickel in MS65,say $500,maybe $600?
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong.”
“Then you trust more to your imagination than to your knowledge?”
“I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
PCGS will no longer certify the 1914/3 Buffalo nickel as a valid overdate.
They will however, continue to verify this variety as its corresponding FS number listed in the Cherry Picker's Guide>>
When I go into the pcgs price guide they still have the 1914/3 listed. Will this be eliminated? The above statement needs to be elaborated. My grandmother used to say all the time "They say…." and my dad used to ask her "Who is they?". The statement "I learned to day that" needs to be clarified.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
G4 F12 EF40 MS60 MS63 MS63+ MS64 MS64+ MS65 MS65+ MS66 MS66+
390 650 1,350 3,150 5,500 6,000 8000 12,000 27,000 35,000 75,000 ,,,,,,,,,,,
$390 is pretty good for a good specimen. This is some serious money.
This is spread over 95 specimens. I cannot see this being removed from the pop report or price guide.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AUCTION CURRENTLY ON EBAY, AUCTION NUMBER IS 301321705365
A HIGH GRADE 1914/3-S SLABBED BY NGC.
WONDER HOW MANY NGC DID BEFORE THEY STOPPED SLABBING 1914/3 BUFFS?
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
De-listing should never be taken lightly.
I will leave such decisions to the higher pay grades.
When I went through my finest known full strike only collecting days, I shied away from controversy coins.
This is why.
They went from 1914/3 to 1914/(3)
I believe this is simply to imply that is is questionable.
Which I believe is helpful to the collector, that the collector, when they see this, they will view and decide for themselves, rather than just assume based upon what is on the slab,
which I believe what most collectors have adopted to anyway, not just believing something because it is in a book or writing, or a slab,
but to choose to believe because of their own knowledge.
I had heard they were only certifying only die #1 or #2, but not sure on this.
I do not believe this change devalues this variety at all, as it is still in high demand.
Kevin
Most people who debunk the variety base their opinion on some of the weaker dies. Many of those who have seen an EDS high grade example of either Die #1 or #2 are convinced that it is a likely overdate. Coin World had a series of articles that stated this was an overdate when it was discovered in 1996. Overlays confirm the placement of the underdigit both then and now-James Wiles did the latest overlay. He's not convinced it is an overdate but wants to see a high grade example of one of the better dies for further examination so if anyone out there has one please send it to him.
As has been stated, a lot of people who paid big $$ for this coin will be out of a lot of money, which would be a shame and, I think, very unfair if the variety is ever de-listed.
It's not that it's de-listed or any such thing, at least from what I understand. I posted an answer to an inquiry a couple of years ago from Mike Faraone stating that they DO recognize Die #2 and some EDS examples of Die #1 as worthy of a designation. The number of dies (currently 10), some barely visible, is, I believe, what started this whole debate. I think the modified designation means only that it hasn't been absolutely confirmed to be an overdate (I and several others such as Bill Fivaz, Mike Ellis, and Larry Briggs, among others) do, indeed, believe it to be what it purports to be but in reality it may never be confirmed as such. I spoke on the phone with Kevin and we both agreed that the current PCGS designation is as fair to everyone as it can be at this time.
Most people who debunk the variety base their opinion on some of the weaker dies. Many of those who have seen an EDS high grade example of either Die #1 or #2 are convinced that it is a likely overdate. Coin World had a series of articles that stated this was an overdate when it was discovered in 1996. Overlays confirm the placement of the underdigit both then and now-James Wiles did the latest overlay. He's not convinced it is an overdate but wants to see a high grade example of one of the better dies for further examination so if anyone out there has one please send it to him.
As has been stated, a lot of people who paid big $$ for this coin will be out of a lot of money, which would be a shame and, I think, very unfair if the variety is ever de-listed.
I completely agree. Once a variety has been listed and collectors spend money on these varieties for their Registry sets........they should NEVER be delisted!!!
The only other thing i would add is that I don't agree that a variety should never be de-listed. Most people that bought a 14/3 either knew the recent origins of its discovery or should have. Seems to me that scholarship should control -if new information surfaced that suggested that it should not qualify as an over date, then delisting makes sense.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
Koynekwest is the buffalo variety expert I would listen to first and admittedly I did not collect varieties when I assembled my Buffalos. However, I read every Buffalo reference book out there (including Koynekwest's) and the 14/3 has always been the weak stepsister of varieties that requires a lot of squinting. David Hall in one of his coin reports discussed the possibility of revisiting the designation so it is a variety that fuels debate. Maybe that is a good thing.
The only other thing i would add is that I don't agree that a variety should never be de-listed. Most people that bought a 14/3 either knew the recent origins of its discovery or should have. Seems to me that scholarship should control -if new information surfaced that suggested that it should not qualify as an over date, then delisting makes sense.
I will agree with breakdown's last paragraph as to the de-listing of a variety. If it can be proved NOT to be a legit variety then of course it should be de-listed. Thing is I don't see how that can be done any more than proving it IS an overdate. Each Buff variety collector should read all the evidence, try to view the EDS high grade Die #1 or #2 and come to their own conclusions. I have a few sentences in my book cautioning against committing a large sum of money for this coin because of it's controversial nature. As to the labeling of the slab perhaps someone at PCGS can chime in on this.
I would respectfully disagree with this assessment,
Breen listed many varieties, which were later proved to be incorrect, because he listed them in a book, and collectors spend money, they should not proven what is the truth.
In 1992, I proved the 1969/8 Two cent was not an overdate. This was a coin that was valued at around 10K when listed as an overdate. Over time, after refuted, it settled in price where it should be based on a rare die state of a tripled punched date.
JD went to each of the primary graders at PCGS and asked them if they believed this variety was an overdate. Each of the primary graders said they did not.
IMO, it would be wrong for PCGS or any other grading service to certify a variety as an overdate, when they do not believe it is, its all about the truth IMO.
NGC will not certify this variety as an overdate for the same reason, but they will identify these varieties as FS varieties, this way the collector can still easily identify this variety to the books they are published in.
I believe it is important to tell collectors the truth, and let them decide for themselves, its their money.
Kevin
It's not that it's de-listed or any such thing, at least from what I understand. I posted an answer to an inquiry a couple of years ago from Mike Faraone stating that they DO recognize Die #2 and some EDS examples of Die #1 as worthy of a designation. The number of dies (currently 10), some barely visible, is, I believe, what started this whole debate. I think the modified designation means only that it hasn't been absolutely confirmed to be an overdate (I and several others such as Bill Fivaz, Mike Ellis, and Larry Briggs, among others) do, indeed, believe it to be what it purports to be but in reality it may never be confirmed as such. I spoke on the phone with Kevin and we both agreed that the current PCGS designation is as fair to everyone as it can be at this time.
Most people who debunk the variety base their opinion on some of the weaker dies. Many of those who have seen an EDS high grade example of either Die #1 or #2 are convinced that it is a likely overdate. Coin World had a series of articles that stated this was an overdate when it was discovered in 1996. Overlays confirm the placement of the underdigit both then and now-James Wiles did the latest overlay. He's not convinced it is an overdate but wants to see a high grade example of one of the better dies for further examination so if anyone out there has one please send it to him.
As has been stated, a lot of people who paid big $$ for this coin will be out of a lot of money, which would be a shame and, I think, very unfair if the variety is ever de-listed.
Ron and I are kinda on the opposite side of the coin on this variety so to speak. I agree with Ron on this that PCGS did the right thing which we both believed was fair, by listing it a way to say it was questionable, it turns the burden to the collector to make the determination IMO, which the collector should be doing themselves anyway IMO.
John Wexler and I originally believed it was an overdate and published it as such in earlier books. If taken from a high perspective, die #1 and #2, do have the look and feel of an underlying 3.
But when you examine the details of the diagnostics on the coin, especially on die #1 #2, #3, which point away from being validated as an overdate.
One of the main arguments on these varieties is that there are die scratches around the top of the 4, that the Engraver was obviously removing something. Then a leap of faith is taken that it must have been an underlying 3.
I respectfully disagree with this leap of faith, I believe there should be actual evidence of a 3, which is conclusive to state this is an overdate IMO.
In my recent Morgan Dollar book, I figured out that the 1880 overdates were the result of overdates being created during the hubbing process, not being struck as overdates.
There was a lot of knowledge gained from this. I am rewriting my 1914/3 evaluation using this knowledge gained and will send out to those who previously requested the last one, and anyone else who wants to read.
Will let people know when I am done
Thanks
Kevin
I would respectfully disagree with this assessment,
Breen listed many varieties, which were later proved to be incorrect, because he listed them in a book, and collectors spend money, they should not proven what is the truth.
In 1992, I proved the 1969/8 Two cent was not an overdate. This was a coin that was valued at around 10K when listed as an overdate. Over time, after refuted, it settled in price where it should be based on a rare die state of a tripled punched date.
JD went to each of the primary graders at PCGS and asked them if they believed this variety was an overdate. Each of the primary graders said they did not.
IMO, it would be wrong for PCGS or any other grading service to certify a variety as an overdate, when they do not believe it is, its all about the truth IMO.
NGC will not certify this variety as an overdate for the same reason, but they will identify these varieties as FS varieties, this way the collector can still easily identify this variety to the books they are published in.
I believe it is important to tell collectors the truth, and let them decide for themselves, its their money.
Kevin
Indeed. Somewhat earlier than that I proved to Ken Bressett's satisfaction that the so-called 1869/8 cent was a repunched date and not an overdate, and the listing was modified in the Redbook. It would have been wrong to continue to list it incorrectly for the sake of current owners, to the detriment of potential future owners.
That said I still believe that the various 1914/3 nickel obverses are overdates, probably caused by a number of dies being partially hubbed with a 1913 hub and then finished with a 1914 hub, but I will concede that the majority of them are not significant overdates, just as many of the various 1880/79 dollar obverses are not significant overdates. However, both groups are collectible for what they are.
TD
TD
I agree with that Tom, they are collectable and also fun to study
Kevin
That's a very reasonable assessment and one with which I would agree. I originally believed these to be from an overdated working hub but I think your conclusion is more likely. It certainly can't compare to the 1918-D/7 nickels and quarters or the 1942-P 2/1 dime in visual appeal but, as far as the strength of the underdigit goes the better dies compare favorably with both the 1943 3/2 Jeff and the 1942-D 2/1 Merc in my opinion. I also agree that the majority of the ten dies do require some imagination to discern but that does not change the fact that they are likely overdates and the fact that multiple dies, each with a distinct pattern of effacement lines do exist.
CaptHenway has posted the following:
"Indeed. Somewhat earlier than that I PROVED TO KEN BRESSETT'S SATISFACTION that the so-called 1869/8 cent was a repunched date and not an overdate, and the listing was modified in the Redbook. It would have been wrong to continue to list it incorrectly for the sake of current owners, to the detriment of potential future owners."
While the statement in caps is undoubtedly correct...I should like to correct the record. YEARS BEFORE the variety was changed in the Redbook, the ANACS authenticators published these findings in the Numismatist magazine. In 1972, before that column was written, ANACS authenticators stopped calling the variety 9/8 and certified them as 9/9. They never consulted with Bressett about the change.
We all should be grateful that Tom and Ken corrected the Redbook at a later date.
To be fair, on a fake like this that has been considered genuine and acceptable for so long; the TPGS should owe nothing to people holding the slabs.
I've heard in the 1970's, when ANACS made an error and certified some $3 fakes before they discovered their mistake - their error was corrected, certificates were recalled, and no one tried to get compensated. Ah, the good old days.
Ron’s books was very helpful in making this attribution as die marks under the chiefs chin were what made the attribution as to die number easy. The crossbar was week but visible.
I put it on eBay for $79.95 and it sold in about 2 weeks. So the action is still there for this variety.
Also found a specimen of the 1914/3-d (FS-104.88) also in vg-fine condition with the obverse diebreak from the rim at 9 o’clock below the small feather and in towards the center of the coin. (This coin is down at SEGS getting slabbed right now).
(Will put this one on flea bay too to see if there is any interest )
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
The number of 14/13 dies is now ten as three were found by James Wiles to be different die stages of three existing dies and not new dies at all.
I recently found a specimen of die number 13 in vg-fine condition with a weak but visible crossbar. I listed it on eBay and it sold for $79.95.
So this shows that the interest is still out there for these different does amongst the average collector.
Also recently found a specimen of 1914/3-d (fs-014.88) very good condition with the obverse die break running from the rim at 9 o’clock under the small feather and in towards the center of the coin.
As soon as it comes back from SEGS will put it on eBay and see if there is any interest for this D mint overdate.
The collector who bought this specimen of die 13 (now die 10) was very happy as he just posted his feedback.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
dont forget this variety comes from all three mints.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Skip, the earliest thing I can find by you on the 1869/69 cents was your ANACS Seminar column in the April, 1976 Numismatist, though as I understand the article you were saying that all of the various 1869/9, 1869/69 and so-called 1869/68 cents were from the same die in different die states.
The 1975 Edition of the Redbook, which came out on July 1, 1974, listed the 1869 over 8 cent as an overdate with the following footnote: "*Do not confuse with recut variety of 1869."
By the 1976 Edition, which came out on July 1, 1975, I had convinced Ken that it was not an overdate, but as he was reluctant to delist the variety too quickly he left the 1869 over 8 line listing in and only changed the footnote to read "*The 9 is doubled on some varieties of the 1869; on others it is apparently over an 8." Further changes occured in subsequent editions.
So, because Ken was reluctant to delist the variety too quickly, yours was the first published statement that the 1869/8 cent was not an overdate.
TD
CaptHenway has posted the following:
"...the earliest thing I can find by you on the 1869/69 cents was your ANACS Seminar column in the April, 1976 Numismatist, though as I understand the article you were saying that all of the various 1869/9, 1869/69 and so-called 1869/68 cents were from the same die in different die states. The 1975 Edition of the Redbook, which came out on July 1, 1974, listed the 1869 over 8 cent as an overdate with the following footnote: "Do not confuse with recut variety of 1869." By the 1976 Edition, which came out on July 1, 1975, I had convinced Ken that it was not an overdate, but as he was reluctant to delist the variety too quickly he left the 1869 over 8 line listing in and only changed the footnote to read "The 9 is doubled on some varieties of the 1869; on others it is apparently over an 8." Further changes occured in subsequent editions.
So, because Ken was reluctant to delist the variety too quickly, yours was the first published statement that the 1869/8 cent was not an overdate."
While that column may have been the first "published" account of the "over date," I determined that these coins were not a 9/8 soon after joining ANACS in 1972. From that point on ANACS called them 9/9's. I had no idea that article came out four years later. As I just wrote in a Numismatic News column, Charlie let me write one of his ANACS columns for the Numismatist. I picked the subject of the 9/8 cent to toot my own horn...LOL.
PS Your skills as a researcher and contributions to numismatics are still far above mine!
Obviously we arrived at the same conclusion independently of each other at different times.
I based my conclusion partly on the shapes of the "1's." Since they were using four-digit gang punches at the time, the high "flag" on the 1869 date would have left the lower, thicker "flag" on the 1868 date virtually intact. Of course they could have used a single-digit "9" punch or a double-digit "69" punch to achieve overdates, but then you would have seen spacing anomalies. The "1's" were what I used to convince Ken Bressett that they were not overdates.
TD