Options
1916 buffalo missing F?
coin22lover
Posts: 3,542 ✭✭✭
What do you think about this Buff? Is there anything "funny" about it?
0
Comments
Decent MS coin with nice color. What oddity do you see on the coin?
I see what appears to be the top of the "F." There's little demand for these (there's a number of different dates known) if they show the initial at all. That one was caused by some other form of die damage other than abrasion, which is the case in the popular known variety.
I like the iridescent color. Can't tell from the pic if the "F" is missing.
That reverse is really pretty.
Pretty coin. Most of the "F" is missing due to very worn dies.
As kkwest said, the F has to be completely missing to call it a No F.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Looks to me like a heavy clash that damaged the recesses of the die took out the F (or most of it).
Pete
Just looks very weak
BHNC #203
From the lower right rim damage it appears the collar might have been loose causing the missing F. On the reverse at the same point seems to be extra metal, but then that is just an opinion. Still a very attactive 16 especially the reverse.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
Really great detail on the reverse.... I agree with the above assessments on the F.... Cheers, RickO
Oops!
I meant the F
BHNC #203
The clash is not the only problem that led to the designer's initial problem, but is contributory to it.
Here are 2 overlays I have in my coin folder. You can trace the clash with these.
Pete
@BuffaloIronTail said: "Looks to me like a heavy clash that damaged the recesses of the die took out the F (or most of it)."
Nice overlay! Can you help me find the die clash on the OP's coin. As soon as I realized you were not making a joke, I've been looking really hard to find it. Thanks.
Insider2: Look at the Indians' central hair detail just above the knot. Lot of stuff going on there. Then trace it with the overlay. The clash extends all the way through to his eye.
Pete
@BuffaloIronTail said: "Look at the Indians' central hair detail just above the knot. Lot of stuff going on there. Then trace it with the overlay. The clash extends all the way through to his eye."
I confused. Let me ask some more questions. What is the deepest part of the obverse die? Where would I expect to see a mark from another die, in the field or in the deepest part of the die?
Sorry, what you have posted so far does not make sense to me. IMO the coin was struck with very worn dies. IMO, there is no sign of a die clash. I have an open mind so I'll wait to hear what a nickel expert or error expert thinks.
Sometimes heavy clashes can get into the recesses of a die. I know it sounds strange. Wish I could add more.
I'm not really an "expert"
Pete
I'm not a Buff die variety expert,
but I agree with Insider2 -
Struck from well-worn dies;
no sign of die clashing seen.
@BuffaloIronTail said: "Sometimes heavy clashes can get into the recesses of a die."
Interesting. Pete, If you come across one, would you post it. I've never seen this characteristic you describe but I'll be looking too.
Here is an image of the known and accepted die-
And images of what would be a "complete" clash (which, of course doesn't exist.)
This is about as extreme as a clash can get on a Buffalo 5c-
Here is an image of the clash above that's rotated 25 degrees or so. The appearance of a clash can vary pretty dramatically when the die is rotated.
And here is what appears to be the fur from the bison's back and hump showing on the Indian's neck. The clashing in the fields have apparently been removed by the polishing of the die but still show on this recessed area. Since this is on a middle die state coin I don't believe the roughness is caused by an advanced state of the die. It can be seen on many coins of this series.
The "fur" is just die wear. As you wrote, very common.
Your overlays are not lined up correctly. The clash from IGWT is 99.9% ALWAYS right under the Indian's chin. I'm leaving wiggle room for a rotated clashed die. Something I've never seen on one of these.
That fuzzy 'fur' area is not from clashed dies.
As mentioned previously, it's from a worn or
overused die - common on Buffs, especially
the Branch Mints, especially SF
But the coin is a middle die state specimen. Would not a coin struck from and advanced state die be LDS?
Here is a coin that's MDS, not LDS. It shows the same roughness on the neck. The neck area is not a deeply recessed part of the die. And clashing CAN occur in the recesses of a die, as seen in the second image here.
Well.........I guess you learn something new everyday. Like I said, I'm not an expert. I'll recant everything I said..pay it no mind. I've said it before..........I'm just a soldier in this Army.
I repeat what I have heard in the past, and I try as best as I can to evaluate a coin.
You know.............this is not worth it. I think I'll just disappear for another 10 years. Nothing around here has changed.
Thanks, Ron for backing me up.
Pete
What coin, the OP's?
In all honesty, I VERY RARLY got into the EDS, MDS, LDS, VEMDS, VLMDS, VLDS, ABCDEFG...
I first learned about that stuff decades ago, when Del Romaines (sp?) did a great study in the Numismatist magazine. I know the CONNECA guys love it and it is very helpful to attribute some coins but other than that it's all ABCDEFG...to me. When I see a coin with worn dies I know what I'm looking at. All I know about the OP's coin is the die was not fresh. It has been used a lot. Without seeing a bunch of coins in a progression struck from the same die, AFAIK all the "experts" are just guessing about the "die state letters!" Have fun.
Here is, perhaps, a better example. THIS coin was NOT struck from a late state, worn out set of dies and yet shows the roughness on the neck quite clearly. I'm not questioning Fred on his assessment-he, after all, is "The Man" when it comes to mechanical errors and the like. But I still maintain those are clash marks.
What are you posting about?
There is so much crap, BS, misinformation both printed, written, and spoken in numismatics that just ONE HOUR AGO (not in this thread) I'm thinking to myself "What the heck is going on? Where is the ANA? Where are the numismatic educators! Yes, I"M YELLING. We all have opinions. Many are absolutely true and beyond refute.
Unfortunately, I'll bet 85+ percent of professional numismatists and collectors have had no formal training AT ALL. Just hearsay like if I can spin a $5 Indian, it's a counterfeit! GIVE ME A BREAK. I learned very early that "time-in" this hobby does not make anyone an "expert." We all started somewhere. When I was a YN I had a coin dealer tell me that the clashed letters under the chin of my nickel (I never heard of a clash - I just saw some letters) were NOTHING!
Rant over; but you should stick around. I've been looking at coins using a stereo microscope for almost fifty years and have been in more seminars than I can remember yet a member's post got me thinking and I LEARNED SOMETHING I NEVER KNEW YESTERDAY! Don't ask as I should be embarrassed. We (you and I) are lucky to have some of the posters here both agreeing and disagreeing with our posts - IT'S HOW WE LEARN!
@koynekwest said: "THIS coin was NOT struck from a late state, worn out set of dies and yet shows the roughness on the neck quite clearly. I'm not questioning Fred on his assessment-he, after all, is "The Man" when it comes to mechanical errors and the like. But I still maintain those are clash marks."
I admire your perseverance and you should always "Question with Boldness" until you are satisfied. I've had seminar instructors tell the class that the questions they get make them think. If they can answer the question in a clear and correct way, it proves they know their subject. I'll bet Fred would be the first to tell you he is not "God."
I'm not that modest! Only kidding. This thread needs some humor as one member has said he may leave.
Unfortunately, I don't know how to answer your question to your satisfaction - YET.
For now, I'll leave you with this to think about. When you get your overlay in the correct orientation, the Bison's fur lines will be almost vertical - NO MATCH. Next, the back of the Bison is incuse in the die. The Indian's neck is also. What you ask me to believe is that those two RECESSED parts of the die CAME INTO CONTACT without leaving any other evidence on the raised parts of the die. I don't buy it. Furthermore, the dies all came from a "working" hub. There are several different "working" hubs used to make the dies for this date. I'll guarantee that not every die has exactly the same wear after striking coins. Additionally, I'll bet we could find differences in every 1916 "working" die before any of them reached the coining press. 
What do you think?
I'll concede that the bison's back and hump area are moderately deep recesses in the reverse die, which makes it difficult to explain how it could show. I think because of this IF those are clashes from that area that it was a light, incomplete clash and wouldn't show the vertical lines, just patches of roughness. A more complete clash is this one, seen on the obverse of the 1913 Var. 1 3 1/2 legged variety. Vertical lines can be seen on this clash and a mirror image of the outline of the bison's head and neck, which is seen to a lesser extent on many dates.
And BTW-Pete, you're quite welcome!
Thanks for the post. IMO, the clash marks in the image above are in the field WHERE THEY BELONG.
When a die rotates it can change the appearance of the clash drastically. Shallower parts of the bison's back could come into play with this rotation. If you look at my third image of the 1913-S Var. 1 above you will clearly see clash marks showing on the temple of the Indian and at the eye, the latter producing the "Lone Ranger" or "Masked Indian" die clash, which was popularized some years back by Bill Fivaz, who coined the term "Lone Ranger" variety. These clashes are in somewhat recessed parts of the die. The first image is of a clear "Lone Ranger" die clash. The second and third image is of an "eyeball" clash, which is from a rotated die with different amounts of rotation.
I'm going a little crazy posting these images so I will cease and desist for the present time..
Agreed> @Insider2 said:
Agreed. These clashes are easily removed with the abrading process while those in the recessed places are not. I believe the clashes on the '13-S are somewhat atypical in that they seem to be from some kind a tilted die in that they show only in front of the face and neck, with nothing seen behind.
Notice, too, on that image that the clash extends well into the neck and at the temple and eye. Tho these aren't deep parts of the die, they are recessed to a degree.
Thanks, I see the clash at the nose (single vertical line in the field) on the top image and agree that the crescent behind the eye looks like it goes with the overlay you made. So clash field and face...I'll start looking for one of these as your evidence looks strong.
The '13-S is tough to find. There's several other dates that have a strong clash like that-they are the 1913 Var 1, 1913 Var 2, 1914, 1916-S, and a few others. They are all hard to find but good luck! I may be able to scan a few I have-I'll post 'em here. I've studied clashes for a long time-it goes hand-in-hand with my book on buff 5c abraded dies
I see several 1913-S Type one and Type 2 nickels a week and perhaps three dozen other dates. Love those Buffs!
I've NEVER seen a clash on the head or neck in hand - ever. I have seen the line up from the nose and clashes in the field on each side of the Indian. I'll be looking.
Struck from over extended dies back in the day. Some serious fatigue showing with this strike. You can actually see the flow of the material caused buy this seriously dull overextended die set. Cool buffalo nickel showing some real character.
Interesting comments. So, I take it due to the very late die state, while it may not be the "no F" that I was hoping for, that it must grade 68 or so?
Joe-
Coins from a worn out die will show distorted, fuzzy lettering and sometimes indistinct details. The date and LIBERTY are distinct. The coin doesn't look like it's from a worn die. I don't believe those "flow lines" are that-I think they're some form of damage to the die. This coin was struck by an excessively worn die-
@crazyhounddog said: "Struck from over extended dies back in the day. Some serious fatigue showing with this strike. You can actually see the flow of the material caused buy this seriously dull overextended die set. Cool buffalo nickel showing some real character."
This is a 100% absolutely CORRECT explanation of the worn die radials on the OP's coin.
@koynekwest said: "Coins from a worn out die will show distorted, fuzzy lettering and sometimes indistinct details. The date and LIBERTY are distinct."
Anyone who studies coins of all types will note that major die wear (characteristic of the deepest grooves and raised radials) starts at the EDGES of most coin's. Capped Bust Half dollars and 1909-S VDB cents all show this common effect as more and more coins are struck. This happens as the rest of the coin is hardly affected as you have pointed out on the OP's coin. For some reason (IMHO it is the hardness of the nickel alloy
) , Buffalo nickels are especially plagued with "artifacts" caused by die wear! They commonly show extreme radial flow on the Indian's head and neck as well as the fields. The OP's coin is an example.
While your post showing the "S" mint nickel above contains good information - it is struck with a worn die - I finally needed to give you a disagree
for this continuous bit of misinformation, ALREADY REFUTED: "The coin doesn't look like it's from a worn die. I don't believe those "flow lines" are that - I think they're some form of damage to the die."
This may not be totally fair as some "experts" consider excessive die wear to be damage. I don't. I believe for the sake of clarity that it is best to keep actual DAMAGE to a die separated from the effects of use.
I'll be trying to unravel or confirm your die clash theory in this thread.
Well, I totally disagree with that assessment. EVERY LDS coin I've seen shows those effects on the lettering and/or date. I've been collecting and studying this series for over 56 years and I've seen plenty of them.
Here is a less extreme example of a coin struck from a worn obv die-
Sorry to disagree again but that's what the button is for...
Care to post the reverse of this coin? You and most long time nickel experts know all about the STRIKE on Branch Mint coins in the twenties, right? 
The 'roughness' shown on the
1916 Nickel posted first is not the
same type of 'roughness' shown
on the other 1916 above.
The roughness in the OP's
first photo is still due to worn
or overused dies, imo.
I've fairly familiar with die clashes,
including Buffalo nickels......
Yes, I've made mistakes before,
and I'm not perfect (ask either of
my ex-wives for their take on it),
but I still say they are not die clash
remnants.
BTW, I cannot count how many 100% Mint State fully lustrous Buffalo nickels with absolutely NO TRACE OF WEAR I've seen that look EXACTLY as the coin you posted. AFAIK, they are called "Flat Strikes." Many believe (Bill Fivaz is one) that some of them are struck with dies that are so worn (also refinished ?) that even the detail deep in the dies has been eroded away. In other words, there was no hair detail left on the obverse die. Since I've never seen one of these dies, I believe coins like this were caused by all the reasons "weakly struck coins" are produced in addition to the die wear caused by the hard nickel alloy!
Certainly. Note the lack of detail in the recessed parts of the coin, especially on the obv. This is the result of a worn die, not a weak strike. Weak strikes will still show good detail in the shallower parts of the design as seen in the first image; coins from worn dies will not. Both sides of this coin were struck by worn does; the obv. much more so than the rev.
We've reached an impasse on this-I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this subject.