1913 Type I and Type 2 Buffalo Nickel Date Comparison
BuffaloIronTail
Posts: 7,484 ✭✭✭✭✭
An article in the 1913 Numismatist (included here) states that the date area on Buffalo Nickels was strengthened due to premature wear. Here are pictures of both types courtesy of Heritage. The article is courtesy of Ron Pope.
Do you see any difference? The Type I image was taken from an NGC graded Proof 68*. It could be that the article was referring to the coinage for 1914, as it was published in February of that year.
Thanks, Ron.
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
0
Comments
I think you've got a valid point, Pete. The differences, if any, are very subtle.
I agree. Subtle but very noticeable. Three pop right out.
It may be my imagination, but is the date and that whole field it's in seem counter sunk compared to the rims of both coins.
I've seen many Var 1 coins in Fine-VF grade that have the date nearly worn away whereas this isn't seen on the Var 2 coins, so that modification must have had SOME impact.
The lighting makes it look that way.
OK. Please let us know what they are.
Pete
Some... but not much in the sharpness of the date.
Here is my nicest, most well-struck T1 buff date. Denver mint.
Collector, occasional seller
It seems as if the depth of the incuse numerals on the die was increased... they may well have increased the striking pressure, though I doubt that. Cheers, RickO
See Renaissance of American Coinage 1909-1915 for information regarding 1913 design changes.
COME ON! Authentication takes an eye for detail. Making a comparison between coins is developed with practice.
Look at the SHAPE of the numerals. What are the differences?
Gee. Guess I better start practicing. Don't forget the coin on the left is from an NGC PR-68*, and the one on the right is a business strike.
You did wake me up, though. I'll agree that the date looks like it was brought up on the second coin.
The flatness at the bottom of the 19 in the date on the proof is what I believe from a poor strike. something inexcusable for a proof coin.
The bottom loop in the 3 that has the small curvature at its end doesn't regularly show up on a lot of circulation strikes, but it is there. Check out the picture off the 1913-D TY 2 picture ChrisH821 provided above.
The entire date area looks to have been "smoothed out" by Barber to eliminate roughness that was causing micro cracking of the die.
Thank you, Roger, for your reference. I bought the wrong book. I'm working off my own opinions. I should NEVER do that. Guess I haven't learned yet.
Take my comments as a grain of salt. "Little People" like me will never reach the heights of the "Chosen Ones".
I apologize. I get like this sometimes.
Pete
The numerals do look a little "sharper" irrespective of strike.
Folks also complained that the high relief of the type 1 Buffs would not stack well. Who cares if they stack
James had it right the first time. Very cool article, Pete.
Flatness does not count as that is a strike thing. It didn't cross my mind until you mentioned it.
Here is what I see and it may be due to the lighting. Different shapes - wider and narrower.
Check out the picture off the 1913-D TY 2 picture ChrisH821 provided above.
That picture I posted is a 1913-D Type 1
Sorry if I muddied the water with the extra pic in this thread. I thought the strike was lacking on the original photo shown(had no idea it was a proof! I missed that part)
Collector, occasional seller
There is also more gap between the 1 and the bottom loop of the 9. The upper point of the 3 may be just a tiny bit pointier.
Collector, occasional seller
I got it wrong. I stand corrected.
Pete
You are probably correct. If Barber was going to play around in the area, It's a good bet He also messed with the date.
The deficiencies in the date were recognized very early on.
There is absolutely no doubt the 1914 date was strengthened, but to no avail.
Pete
RE: "Folks also complained that the high relief of the type 1 Buffs would not stack well."
During research for the book, I did not come across this situation. Minor coins were mechanically counted or bank tellers used calibrated tubes. They did not habitually stack minor coins or small silver.