Odd ebay auction, your opinions as to the coin offered

jesbroken

I noticed also that 1) the number on the reverse of the holder did not holdup under verification(did not exist) 2) the reverse of the coin was at a steep angle in the holder and yet the obverse was smooth with the holder 3) the seller gave two pictures of the reverse in the holder(not complete) and none of the obverse 4) The coins finish obv and reverse are completely different 5) there seems to be a large difference in the finish on the holder obverse and reverse.
What do you think in regards to this sellers auction for this 1916 P Buffalo Nickel?
The auction is located: https://www.ebay.com/itm/1916-5C-Buffalo-Nickel-MS-64-Toned-Gem-ICG-MS-64-Crossover-Upgrade-Candidate/122756627612?ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649

clarkbar04

I don't care much for the coin, but I think the listing is legit.

When it comes to 1916 buffs, it can pay to be patient.

jesbroken

Thanks CB. I already have a nice AU for my collection, I just saw this coin and the color grabbed my attention. Just curious about the anomalies I noticed.
Jim

ArizonaRareCoins

The number on the reverse does show correctly at the ICG website look-up:

Beefer518

The auction has been removed...? (That was quick)

CoinCrazyPA

The aution is gone

ArizonaRareCoins

The listing is still on eBay, here's the link:

https://ebay.com/itm/1916-5C-Buffalo-Nickel-ICG-MS-64-Great-Looking-Toned-Coin-/122760657830?epid=170447447&hash=item1c951afba6:g:wwAAAOSwB3BZ5~Qr

koynekwest

As clarkbar04 says-be patient-the 1916 can and does come nice and they seem to come attractively toned more often than most of the other early dates.

clarkbar04

Now that's a fine 1916! I have a lowly ms62 in this date. Fits right in with my 1915 in 62.

ricko

The original listing was removed....??..... and then the second link shows it back....not sure what happened there....My rule for Buffs is....'If there is any question in my mind, I pass.' Cheers, RickO

panexpoguy

I think that the appearance coin being in the holder at an angle in one shot and level in the second shot is due to the movement of lighting. Looks like first image light was above holder and second shot light was head on level with the coin. Just what it looks like to me.

lkeigwin

The coin doesn't looked tilted to me. It appears to be flush with the front of the holder and, logically, recessed on the rear. The reverse photo was not shot square.

You see this a lot with NGC coins.
Lance.

crazyhounddog

It kinda looks to me like the seller cranked up the sharpness on the obverse pic. JMO

silverpop

most likely did increase the sharpness of the photo, some sellers do that to show the coin better