Question on 1914/3 Buffalo Nickel
TPRC
Posts: 3,814 ✭✭✭✭✭
I have what I believe is an EDS 1914/3 buffalo nickel in VF+ condition. I sent it in to PCGS but it came back as a straight 1914 in VF-35, IIRC. I think that means that PCGS has decided that it is not the FS-101. I have read many of the threads here, mostly from a few years old, concerning this variety, including Kevin Flynn's and TD's comments as well as the comments of others. However, I am still not sure where I go to get this properly attributed. Is there someone who will be at Baltimore who can tell me what I've got here? Suggestions welcome. I'll be there on Thursday and again on Saturday.
Tom
0
Comments
I don't know much about this variety except that there are several different dies and PCGS only does a certain die and does not recognize the others.
Dumb question - did you opt for variety attribution and pay the additional $15 (I think it's still $15)?
Can you post an image?
You might try sending it to pcgs again. Or SEGS who do a great job of authenticating buffalo nickel varieties. ngc will not do any of the 1914/3 varieties. So, you are left with pcgs again, or you could try anacs and like I said segs. If you do not mind spending the extra $$ maybe try pcgs a second time before you go elsewhere. Also I think even if pcgs agrees it is an overdate it will only list the FS number on the slab, and not 1914/3 -- just 1914.
good luck!
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Thanks for the responses.
TD, I will try to photograph tonight, but given my skills, that may be tough. Dave, not a dumb question, since I can't recall how I did it. I always thought that if it was listed separately as a date on the PCGS price guide, a variety designation wasn't required. (e.g., 1813 50/UNI 50c). However, pcgs botched my last 50/UNI submission, requiring a correction by pcgs, so maybe that is the problem. Or maybe I neglected the required variety attribution and that was the problem.
I was really hoping that Kevin Flynn or someone like that might be at Baltimore and could look at it. But I will try to provide more info this evening.
Revised TDN for TD....sorry about that!
Tom
AFAIK, this variety has fallen out of favor. As posted, NGC will not certify them. I don't think PCGS will either. I know ICG will put the FS# on the label but the date will just be 1914. I believe ANACS does the same thing.
Variety attribution is now $18 per coin. From what I understand, if it is a MAJOR Variety, and this one is a Major, the fee is not required...I have been wrong before. CONECA is usually at the big shows (like Baltimore), let them take a look at it.
Here is a link to SOME of the registered vendors/dealers;
http://www.coinzip.com/whitman-baltimore-expo-coin-show
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
I had an ANACS rep tell me the 1914/3 was a no go, so check in advance.
Gonna get me a $50 Octagonal someday. Some. Day.
I thought our forum host no longer attributed the variety. As mentioned, it has very much fallen out of favor, or at least remains very controversial. I suspect that will not change for awhile.
Here is the one that PCGS will attribute;
http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/Coin/Detail/147844
If you have any "laying around" feel free to send them my way.
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
It depends on which die you have. PCGS will only attribute EDS-MDS examples of Die #1 or Die #2 (there are currently 10 different dies known) and even then only with the FS#.
PM me for more info if you wish. I list all 10 dies with photos and die markers in my book.
What is the name of your book?
Folks: OK, I checked my submission to PCGS and I did not pay for variety attribution. I filled the submission out on-line and simply submitted it by coin number and description as the 1914/(3) 5c, coin number 93924. Maybe that was my mistake. On the other hand, perhaps its not as clearly a 4/3 as I thought. Here are a few pics and the best I could do..... Thoughts welcome.
Tom
Insider2-it's called "Buffalo Nickels-the Abraded Die Varieties." Abraded dies-3 and 3 1/2 legged; 2 feathers, etc are the main focus of the book but I have a chapter on the 14/13 stuff, too. I have a couple listed on ebay.
TPRC-I think that's an overdate but it's one of the weaker dies that won't get an attribution. You can also PM me for more info if you want to.
It's been refuted by the experts. I think it's a fantasy coin, now.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Not by all the experts. Bill Fivaz and I still believe that there are true overdates.
TD
Lol that's a 4/3 all day every day of the week.
That does not look like the major... One of the minor ones I believe. Cheers, RickO
I am getting ready to submit one for one of my buffalo variety picker guys, its actually UNC. I am going to pay for the variety fee and see what happens. I told him, I didn't think they were doing the 4/3 any longer, so will see.
Im with the Capt & Fivaz. I meant the "other"experts with my previous comment.
And I have a few grand into an NGC graded specimen. Anyway, I believe (fantasize) it's an overdate, too.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
If you run across Kevin Flynn remember that he does not believe that ANY of the known dies are overdates.
Best to refer to Ron Popes book on Abraded Die Buffalo Nickels which has a section on these 1914/3 overdates.
Ron will give you all the info you need to figure out which die # you might have. As for myself I do believe that
most of the ones I have seen are overdates. And some of them (a few) may not be overdates. But as president
George H W Bush once said “ If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, its a duck!”.
So “If it walks like a 1914/3, looks like a 1914/3, and quacks like a 1914/3, it IS a 1914/3”.
Is anyone confused??
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
IMO from your pics it is an overdate 1914/3.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Thanks. And I am aware of Kevin Flynn's position. I have messaged Ron Pope privately and will get the book and go from there. The real questions for me now are (1) what variety is it (the book will answer this), and (2) how much is it worth (I suppose the book will help on this as well)? Either way, I'm getting the book because it looks like there is a bunch of useful information in it on Buffalo nickels.
Tom
TPRC-
I deleted the values due to the controversy with this variety. I do have a list of recent sales on the introductory page.
Good way to put it using the duck analogy, Tom!
FYI I have two pieces at the show in holders a EDS and MDS. If anyone wants to look at them etc they are at my table in NEWPS section for sale sand I'm at the show until late sat. Table 757.
It is an overdate in my opinion. I agree 100 percent with koyneqwest above. There is a prolific numismatic writer who
feels other wise and the two camps (for and against) have been going after one another for years.
Take some time for familiarize youself with "Occam's razor” The concept was put forth centuries ago which says
that the simplest answer to a problem is most often the right answer. In the case of the 1914/3 overdates, as President George H W Bush (father of the little shrub George W Bush) said. If it looks like a tax cut, walks like a tax cut, and quacks like a tax cut, ITS A TAX CUT ( a takeoff from if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck).
All these different 1914/3 dies look like overdates, some of them are week but there are enough really clear ones
that, they have to be overdates.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
They were correct. We don't recognize the variety.
For $24 smackers I bought a nice vf-xf 1914/3 unattributed die number 9 from eBay and then had it slabbed by SEGS.
I resold it on flea bay for $190.00. So there is a market for these coins. Just not at the inflated prices that were being
paid when the variety was first discovered. When I say die nine I am referring to Ron Pope’s book on abraded die
varieties which as stated above I think has a section which lists all the known dies, I think 9 or 10 now. Ron keeps this
section updated so I would recommend buying it on the flea (what I call eBay now).
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I still have to put in another plug for SEGS. Besides having an outstanding slab they do a great job of attributing and grading buffalo nickel die varieties.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Hi Tom,
I remember discussing this variety with you,
from our last discussion, both you and Bill believed some were overdates, but not all,
if I remember right, you only believe a few of the 13 Ron listed were 4/3 overdates.
Kevin
Tom,
Ok, lets look at a simple diagnostic. On the right side of the top of the 4 is a triangle, overlay that with a 3, the
bottom angle is to sharp and not the same as a 3. Look at the metal going to the left of the top of the 4, see
how far it extends, almost to the 1, do an overlay.
Please talk facts and diagnostics, not general duck analogy.
I hated when Fivaz used to argue that about a variety, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.... There are over 120 species of ducks, the size, shape, color, .... help determine what type of duck.
In the same context, studying the diagnostics and physical attributes of this variety, you clearly see it cannot be an overdate.
It was delisted as PCGS as none of the graders believed it to be an overdate.
I will gladly send anyone who wishes to read my analysis on this, send me an email kevinjflynn88@yahoo.com
Ron's book is great for identifying which variety you might have.
Kevin
Yes it CAN be an overdate-see James Wiles' overlays on the CONECA website.
Ron.
I have seen them, and I have done my own overlays, its not an overdate
I have also studied the diagnostics on these varieties in great detail, they cannot be the remnants of a 3. The size, shape, angles, edges, relative location, and everything else show that it cannot be an overdate.
What I was glad of, is that roughly 50 people wrote me and requested my white paper on this.
When I talked to them after, most stated that they had come to the same conclusion studying the variety
themselves, that it was not an overdate.
If you would like to argue/discuss/compare/analyze the details/diagnostics of any of these varieties, that would be fine, just pick one. Please though use details, not generalizations such as the duck analogy.
Kevin
In general, if considering this variety, if you are smart, you read everything, then figure it out for yourself, its your money.
Hi Kevin,
Much has been said back and forth concerning these coins, and rather than go back and find earlier quotes (you are of course welcome to do so) let me summarize my position on the 1914/3 nickels from the various mints:
There are at least two dies that are, in my opinion, convincing overdates. I do not know if the overdate is the result of multiple working dies being partially hubbed with a 1913 hub that only formed the top part of the 3 on each die before the dies were then finished off with a 1914 hub (my theory); or an engraving error wherein an engraver removed only the bottom of the 3 on a working hub that was then used to sink the start of a new master die. In this scenario (Bill's theory) the engraver then added a 4 to the master die via whatever technique was customary for the day and this overdated master die was then used to raise up a new working hub that was then used to sink multiple working dies.
In either of our theories it would appear that somebody in the engraving department noticed the errant partial 3's and tooled the individual working dies to remove the evidence of the 3's. In this they were generally successful, and on most of the dies you cannot see any remains of the 3, just the linear damage caused by the tooling. HOWEVER, that linear damage is of the same nature as that seen on the dies where I do believe that the remains of a 3 are visible.
So, we have multiple dies that (in my opinion) went through an overdating process but which no longer display an underdate. Are they overdates? One can reasonably argue it either way. There are numerous dies in the 1880/79-P,O,S,CC dollar family which, if there were no other 1880 overdates known, would never have been considered as overdates, much less accepted as overdates. However, they are accepted as overdates because of their more convincing brethren.
I personally have no problem with the TPG's refusing to acknowledge the dies with no remnants of the 3 as overdates. I shall lose neither money nor sleep over their positions. However, that said, I still believe that at least two of the 1914/3 nickel dies ARE convincing overdates with identifiable remains of the 3 on the coin.
And as I have said before, you are welcome to your own opinion on this matter, but some of us so-called experts have our own opinions regarding it.
TD
Hi Tom,
The polishing lines are obviously raised on the coins, which means the dies were polished, and it was it was above
the right side of the date, wish we had clear evidence on what the Engraver was trying to remove.
I believe the grading services should not attribute something if they do not believe it is so. People/auctions
use that information, just like books as an absolute, rather than just an opinion. The fact that the graders
at PCGS, NGC did not believe it to be an overdate, would be wrong to state the same on the slab IMO.
PCGS was right IMO to change this to attribute these two varieties as the same as in the CP book.
I like that we disagree, have different opinions on this. I believe that serves the greater interest of the hobby,
so that collectors become the experts themselves, they should listen to us, but trust in their own research and judgement.
Above anything else, what I hated the most, is during the 90s, collectors would say, Breen put it in writing in
a book, so it must be true, drove me nuts. Second, I hate the duck analogy, sorry, but if you are going to study
coins, you need to study details which are the diagnostics and physical characteristics, not generalizations. You
and I have discussed this variety through email extensively, I know we disagree, and its all good.
The fact that we disagree does not change the level of respect I have for you and your expertise on many numismatic subjects.
Kevin
"Please though use details, not generalizations such as the duck analogy.”
OK here goes....
quack
quack quack
quack quack quack
quack quack quack quack
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Kevinj says: "I remember discussing this variety with you,
from our last discussion, both you and Bill believed some were overdates, but not all,
if I remember right, you only believe a few of the 13 Ron listed were 4/3 overdates.”
The total number of overdates listed in Ron Pope’s book on Abraded Die Buffalo Nickels has been reduced down
from 13 to 9 or 10. A few were different die states of the same die.
(quack)
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Kevin Flynn needs to become familiar with the principal of Ocam.s razor which IMO applies to the 1914/3 buffalo.
((Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case, the simpler one is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is.)) I think the duck analogy, the simple analogy, is right in this case.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Just took some time to reread Kevin Flynn’s analysis of 1914/3 overdate nickels. Problem here is that the “cat has been out of the bag” for over 20 years. As Kevin mentioned, when his books first came out over 20 years ago there were many so-called experts, including him, who thought these were 4/3 overdate varieties. How many copies of his old books are floating around in the coin universe?? A new or younger collector gets ahold of one of these older books and likes what he sees about these overdates and gets one for his buff collection. I bet there are many more buff collectors who like this variety than do not. But of course we will never know.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Tom,
You are attempting to use a concept that implies in part that if you cannot prove it is not an overdate, that it must therefore
by default be an overdate. You fail to understand part of this principle is to have two or more valid explanations. In
creating a conclusion of an overdate, you must actually have physical evidence of the overdate. In refuting this variety
as an overdate, I proved that it was impossible that this was an underlying 3. The shape, size, edges, angles, and
everything else shows that it cannot be the remnants of a 3.
Lets take for example die #3, on the right side of the 4, there is extra raised metal. The diagonal extends from right
below the top of the 4 to right above the top of the crossbar of the at about an 80 degree angle. Where as on a normal
3, from the top right, it angles inward at about 45 degrees. Please explain how philosophy can override physical
characteristics.
IMO, Walter Breen probably thought the same way as you, it must be an overdate as he could not find any other
explanation, plus it seemed like the simplest answer.
Take the 1869/8 Two cent, ooops, EDS showed it was a sequence of die cracks
How about the 1865/4 Two cents, ooops, multiple varieties with the same marks on the same relative position of the 5 showed it was a broken die punch. Maybe the 1861/0 half dime, sorry, again broken die punch. 1849/8 Half Dime,
nope, overlays show it was an underlying 6, could not be an 8. How many other
Breen varieties were refuted by those who took the time to study actual physical evidence.......
Kevin
The 14/13 is best classified as a failed variety. As such, it belongs on the trash heap of numismatics. I wouldn't pay a premium for a coin claiming to be one no matter who had "authenticated" it.
Yep,
In 1996, when this first came out, I took a high level general approach in viewing this variety and included in my books
as an overdate. After Wexler challenged this variety, I took a deep look into the diagnostics and physical characteristics
and concluded it could not be the remnants of a 3.
Yes, I made a mistake, and yes, I have an open mind and learn as I research and study. I am much more thorough now
based upon learning experiences such as this.
Please prove me wrong, do an analysis based upon the diagnostics and physical characteristics and prove it to be an
underlying 3.
You claimed several times in this thread this variety was a 1914/3 overdate, stop quacking and prove it.
I remember discussing this with Mike Ellis once. His theory at the time was that it had to do with clashing, as some of the 4/3 dies show strong clashing as well.
I can say that I did make some good money cherrypicking the variety when it was first reported and the grading services recognized them. I stopped looking when I got the first one back from ANACS with a note saying the variety was not recognized. I still find it fascinating, though.
This is the type of failed logic that harms the collecting community and doesn't promote it at all. Would you say the same things regarding the 1989 mintmarkless Washington quarter? Would you say the same thing regarding the Speared Bison Jefferson modern nickel? NO.
Actually I would say it is logical and reasonable, though perhaps harsh.
Take for example a parallel example, the 1869/8 Two cent piece, one of Breen's inventions, these were valued at over 10K
in Unc. Imagine the perspective of those who paid a high premium for this or other varieties. I believe they might feel
the same.
Sometimes we learn to be more careful through our mistakes so as not to repeat them. So remembering something like
the 1914/3 variety, helps us IMO to improve our analysis.
This variety is not an overdate, therefore it is not what it was claimed to be, which implies it is failed or incorrect in its listing.
Not paying a premium for a variety as one does not believe it to be what it is certified as is a very wise use of one's money IMO.
I still think they are cool to collect and study though.
Kevin
For those few who may be interested in viewing well done and accurate overlays please visit here-http://varietyvista.com/Photographic Study of the 1914-3 Nickel.htm
Dr. Wiles has yet to make up his mind about this variety and needs high grade, early die state examples of Dies #1 or #2 (or possibly Dies # 6 or 9) to help him do so. I would urge anyone who has a vested interest in these coins to provide him with one or more. I personally have no such interest-I have none for sale and haven't for a long time.
Kevin-you can no more PROVE that this is ISN'T an overdate that I can PROVE that it IS. Several well respected specialists do believe that it is, indeed, a legitimate overdate. All opinions, one way or the other should be respected. As far as PCGS goes, If I'm not mistaken they still attribute it by FS# and with a 4/3 in parentheses. If I'm mistaken about this I would appreciate it if someone will correct me.
Christian-I certainly can't speak for Mike but I think he currently believes it is an overdate.
Some accept this as a probable overdate; some don't. That's the way it is and that's the way it will likely remain.
I, for one, will beat this dead horse no more.
Thank you for taking the time to express yourself without being condicending or illiciting a frankless attitude. I have learned from your postings.
I have not heard of the Speared Bison Jefferson modern nickel, what is it? I do enjoy the creative names on some of these
varieties, and I believe they help people remember them, and probably generate more interest.
Ron,
That is my point, from your own words, you cannot prove it is an overdate. Yet you and Tom claim it is an overdate.
I can prove through the physical characteristics and diagnostics that the size, shape, angles, edges, height, and everything
else cannot be the remnants of a 3.
There are no die polishing on the back of the 4 on any of these varieties, yet, the size, shape, edges, .... on the extra metal
is all different. If it was a 3 initially hubbed into the die, it should be consistent in size, shape, and everything else, it could
not for example, have a diagonal that has a much higher degree, and extend down to almost the cross bar of the 4.
On PCGS, they were using 1914/3
Now they will reference the FS number for the two primary varieties. This is stating that it is the same variety as listed in
CP. ANACS has done the same, if they believe it is an overdate/OMM ...., they will list it as such, otherwise, they will also
list it by reference.
They move the 3 to a (3), to list it as a questionable variety, which IMO is a great middle ground, so that a collector
interested in it will know it is one of the varieties, but also understand that PCGS is not asserting that they believe
it is an overdate.
IMO, it does not matter what I personally say or any other person says, IMO, the most important criteria is the coins
themselves, and the evidence they present. That is what collectors should base their conclusions on, not on who
presents it. Which is why I would prefer to not talk opinions, but hard facts and evidence from the coins with you.
Kevin
This was 2007-ish, he certainly could've changed his mind since then...