Buffalo's certainly seem like the hardest series of all US coins for an "outsider" to grade, imo. Before I became interested in them, I couldn't tell some AU's from 64's....VF's from 58's, and vice versa.
Just as I suspected, the reverse of the 1925-S 5c shows very deep die radials around the edge of the coin and between the Bison's back legs. The reverse die was very worn!
@koynekwest said: "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." >
The BU 25 is a "monster coin!" I'm enjoying your posts and only disagree with some of them. Unfortunately your contention that this coin is not weakly struck (in addition to POSSIBLY struck with a worn die) is not correct either. Take a look at the flat part of the Indian's hair braid. I was taught that the little "nicks" in that area were on the original planchet and that part of the planchet NEVER TOUCHED the die face. That's why they were not struck out. The same characteristic is commonly found on Franklin Half dollars, Ike dollars, and Peace dollars. Therefore, the coin is actually weakly struck.
Hope all this makes sense to everyone as my posts in this thread don't seem to be very clear.
As I stated, the 1925 IS weakly struck, just not excessively so. You are correct about the tiny nicks and the fact that it never touched the die. That is an area of opposing high points of the design and is very often weak on these coins. I've done a very extensive 12 year long study of the strike for each date and Mint, viewing over 300,000 coins, mainly online but also in person. The deepest recesses of the design are missing on coins from a worn die, not from a weak strike as it's the high point detail, almost always on opposing high relief parts of the coin that's lacking.
@koynekwest said: "As I stated, the 1925 IS weakly struck, just not excessively so. You are correct about the tiny nicks and the fact that it never touched the die. That is an area of opposing high points of the design and is very often weak on these coins."
So you agree with me. Thank you, I couldn't believe such an experienced expert on Buffalo nickels did not know what a weak strike on a Buffalo nickel looked like!
@koynekwest posted: "I've done a very extensive 12 year long study of the strike for each date and Mint, viewing over 300,000 coins, mainly online but also in person."
That's what makes you an expert on Buffalo nickels! So you agree with me again.
Here is where I go sour on your opinion: Unfortunately, Unless you see the actual dies in the press and the coins coming from them please explain this bit of make believe:
@koynekwest posted: "The deepest recesses of the design are missing on coins from a worn die, not from a weak strike as it's the high point detail, almost always on opposing high relief parts of the coin that's lacking."
LOL, Since by your admission, the planchet metal NEVER TOUCHED THE DIES on the part of the coin showing the weakness, HOW IN THE HECK DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT THE PART OF THE DIE THAT WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE STRIKE LOOKED LIKE?!!! Was it a brand new die that struck a thin, out-of-tolerance planchet? Was it a brand new die used in a press where the distance between the dies was out of tolerance? Did a worn die that was deeply eroded by metal flow hit a thin planchet or was it not set correctly? You may claim to know and thus make unverifiable statements but I'm not a numismatic genius. I have learned to detect what coins struck with worn dies or weakly struck coins look like. I have learned that nickel is a hard alloy that was tough on dies.
I share all this here in spite of your theories. BTW, in my lifetime, the top wizards of numismatic knowledge believed and published that whizzing was a chemical process. We know better now.
Comments
Buffalo's certainly seem like the hardest series of all US coins for an "outsider" to grade, imo. Before I became interested in them, I couldn't tell some AU's from 64's....VF's from 58's, and vice versa.
Just as I suspected, the reverse of the 1925-S 5c shows very deep die radials around the edge of the coin and between the Bison's back legs. The reverse die was very worn!
@koynekwest said: "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." >
The BU 25 is a "monster coin!" I'm enjoying your posts and only disagree with some of them. Unfortunately your contention that this coin is not weakly struck (in addition to POSSIBLY struck with a worn die) is not correct either. Take a look at the flat part of the Indian's hair braid. I was taught that the little "nicks" in that area were on the original planchet and that part of the planchet NEVER TOUCHED the die face. That's why they were not struck out. The same characteristic is commonly found on Franklin Half dollars, Ike dollars, and Peace dollars. Therefore, the coin is actually weakly struck.
Hope all this makes sense to everyone as my posts in this thread don't seem to be very clear.
As I stated, the 1925 IS weakly struck, just not excessively so. You are correct about the tiny nicks and the fact that it never touched the die. That is an area of opposing high points of the design and is very often weak on these coins. I've done a very extensive 12 year long study of the strike for each date and Mint, viewing over 300,000 coins, mainly online but also in person. The deepest recesses of the design are missing on coins from a worn die, not from a weak strike as it's the high point detail, almost always on opposing high relief parts of the coin that's lacking.
@koynekwest said: "As I stated, the 1925 IS weakly struck, just not excessively so. You are correct about the tiny nicks and the fact that it never touched the die. That is an area of opposing high points of the design and is very often weak on these coins."
So you agree with me. Thank you, I couldn't believe such an experienced expert on Buffalo nickels did not know what a weak strike on a Buffalo nickel looked like!
@koynekwest posted: "I've done a very extensive 12 year long study of the strike for each date and Mint, viewing over 300,000 coins, mainly online but also in person."
That's what makes you an expert on Buffalo nickels! So you agree with me again.
Here is where I go sour on your opinion: Unfortunately, Unless you see the actual dies in the press and the coins coming from them please explain this bit of make believe:
@koynekwest posted: "The deepest recesses of the design are missing on coins from a worn die, not from a weak strike as it's the high point detail, almost always on opposing high relief parts of the coin that's lacking."
LOL, Since by your admission, the planchet metal NEVER TOUCHED THE DIES on the part of the coin showing the weakness, HOW IN THE HECK DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT THE PART OF THE DIE THAT WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE STRIKE LOOKED LIKE?!!! Was it a brand new die that struck a thin, out-of-tolerance planchet? Was it a brand new die used in a press where the distance between the dies was out of tolerance? Did a worn die that was deeply eroded by metal flow hit a thin planchet or was it not set correctly? You may claim to know and thus make unverifiable statements but I'm not a numismatic genius. I have learned to detect what coins struck with worn dies or weakly struck coins look like. I have learned that nickel is a hard alloy that was tough on dies.
I share all this here in spite of your theories. BTW, in my lifetime, the top wizards of numismatic knowledge believed and published that whizzing was a chemical process. We know better now.
I'm thinking that is not a "missing F" variety. Nice coin none the less.