<< <i>I discussed this variety at length with Mike Ellis, and he believed that since the obverse of of the strongest ones showed massive clashing, the overdate was related to that and not actually an overdate. >>
There is no clashing in or around the date. The shape of the metal is no where near any reverse design element, letter or anything else. >>
I was going to say the same thing.
Not to add to the fire, but I also do not believe clashing has anything to do with the 1937-D 3-legged variety. Likely a clogged die. >>
The 1937-D 3-legged nickel is not the result of a clogged die. It has been proven that parts of the field of the die, which are the highest parts of the die as it is sitting on a work bench, were physically removed. A blob of grease or other material in the leg of the die would not affect the field.
TD >>
How can that be without either:
Removing the field evenly thus reducing the relief on the entire reverse
Or
Leaving a raised blob where the field was partially removed
From a Heritage auction description. This is, of course, simply impossible to be correct:
1937-D 5C Three-Legged MS66 PCGS. The Three-Legged Buffalo nickel is a coin that has crossover appeal. Technically an error coin, it is now collected as a part of the regular Buffalo nickel series. The coins that are known are all from a single die, and curiously, we know who created this modern rarity. In 1937, a Mr. Young, who was then new to the mint and under pressure to complete a quota of coinage, took an emery stick and ground off evidence of die clashing from a pair of dies. However, in his haste he also inadvertently ground off part of the foreleg of the bison. While lower grade, circulated coins are always available for a price, Uncirculated pieces, especially coins that will fit into a Gem set of Buffalo nickels, are really quite elusive. Only three other MS66 coins have been certified by PCGS with none finer, while NGC has graded 13 with only one finer (2/05).
<< <i>From a Heritage auction description. This is, of course, simply impossible to be correct:
1937-D 5C Three-Legged MS66 PCGS. The Three-Legged Buffalo nickel is a coin that has crossover appeal. Technically an error coin, it is now collected as a part of the regular Buffalo nickel series. The coins that are known are all from a single die, and curiously, we know who created this modern rarity. In 1937, a Mr. Young, who was then new to the mint and under pressure to complete a quota of coinage, took an emery stick and ground off evidence of die clashing from a pair of dies. However, in his haste he also inadvertently ground off part of the foreleg of the bison. While lower grade, circulated coins are always available for a price, Uncirculated pieces, especially coins that will fit into a Gem set of Buffalo nickels, are really quite elusive. Only three other MS66 coins have been certified by PCGS with none finer, while NGC has graded 13 with only one finer (2/05). >>
What's not to believe? That story was published a long, long time ago, I believe in the Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine, and there is no reason to doubt it.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i> I will now don my armor and duck awaiting your slings and arrows. >>
Where's that pic of the mob with torches and clubs? LOL
I pretty much agree, grease filled or even over polished or abraded dies are pretty common. What I think gets attention is a 3 legged animal. On the 22 plain cent the attention is because there are no 22 plains, if it was a year with plain cents maybe nobody would notice or care. The other factor is that these got in the books or got a place in folders. I've always felt that they aren't die varieties since the dies were created normal, they're die states. People collect things based on their preferences and I won't knock it, everyone has different preferences and it seems there are enough followers to maintain the prices on these at their levels. >>
Thanks for your response. Totally agree on the 22-P(?) cent. I thought about this years ago as well and had planned on getting around to it here in a discussion. As far as any inclusion into a "regular" set of Lincolns/Buffalos I would not include the 22-P or 37-D 3 legged within my regular set. Guess it's the traditionalist in me. And that includes the 55-P double die cent which is a big favorite of mine. I am not influenced by the mere inclusion of errors in a "regular" coinage book/price guide, where by there inclusion attempts to nudge me to have them to constitute a complete regular set. They will remain in the error classification folders for my collecting purpose.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
<< <i>From a Heritage auction description. This is, of course, simply impossible to be correct:
1937-D 5C Three-Legged MS66 PCGS. The Three-Legged Buffalo nickel is a coin that has crossover appeal. Technically an error coin, it is now collected as a part of the regular Buffalo nickel series. The coins that are known are all from a single die, and curiously, we know who created this modern rarity. In 1937, a Mr. Young, who was then new to the mint and under pressure to complete a quota of coinage, took an emery stick and ground off evidence of die clashing from a pair of dies. However, in his haste he also inadvertently ground off part of the foreleg of the bison. While lower grade, circulated coins are always available for a price, Uncirculated pieces, especially coins that will fit into a Gem set of Buffalo nickels, are really quite elusive. Only three other MS66 coins have been certified by PCGS with none finer, while NGC has graded 13 with only one finer (2/05). >>
What's not to believe? That story was published a long, long time ago, I believe in the Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine, and there is no reason to doubt it. >>
Tell me exactly how someone can ground off a RECESSED feature of the die with an emery stick???
<< <i>I discussed this variety at length with Mike Ellis, and he believed that since the obverse of of the strongest ones showed massive clashing, the overdate was related to that and not actually an overdate. >>
There is no clashing in or around the date. The shape of the metal is no where near any reverse design element, letter or anything else. >>
I was going to say the same thing.
Not to add to the fire, but I also do not believe clashing has anything to do with the 1937-D 3-legged variety. Likely a clogged die. >>
The 1937-D 3-legged nickel is not the result of a clogged die. It has been proven that parts of the field of the die, which are the highest parts of the die as it is sitting on a work bench, were physically removed. A blob of grease or other material in the leg of the die would not affect the field.
TD >>
How can that be without either:
Removing the field evenly thus reducing the relief on the entire reverse
Or
Leaving a raised blob where the field was partially removed
The entire reverse IS slightly reduced in relief-the beard is shorter; ; E PLURIBUS UNUM is weaker; and the entire bison is smaller. These die markers are one way to tell a genuine coin. The rear legs from the body down are weaker-the coin could legitimately be called a 2 1/2 legged Buffalo. >>
The entire reverse IS slightly reduced in relief-the beard is shorter; ; E PLURIBUS UNUM is weaker; and the entire bison is smaller. These die markers are one way to tell a genuine coin. The rear legs from the body down are weaker-the coin could legitimately be called a 2 1/2 legged Buffalo.
So the entire reverse was lapped resulting in the loss of enough exposed field material to bring it down to the level of the very shallow foreleg. Now that makes much more sense!
<< <i>So the entire reverse was lapped resulting in the loss of enough exposed field material to bring it down to the level of the very shallow foreleg. Now that makes much more sense! >>
Yes. Go out in your back yard and dig out the grass in the shape of a buffalo's leg. That is your die. Now remove all of the grass around the buffalo's leg. The buffalo's leg disappears.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>So the entire reverse was lapped resulting in the loss of enough exposed field material to bring it down to the level of the very shallow foreleg. Now that makes much more sense! >>
Yes. Go out in your back yard and dig out the grass in the shape of a buffalo's leg. That is your die. Now remove all of the grass around the buffalo's leg. The buffalo's leg disappears. >>
not sure i buy the whole "lapped" "polished" away theory for the 3 and 3 1/2 leggers but we have enough debate about enough coins going on just now. anyone got a laser micrometer and several dozen 3 and/or 3 1/2 leggers? .
<< <i>So the entire reverse was lapped resulting in the loss of enough exposed field material to bring it down to the level of the very shallow foreleg. Now that makes much more sense! >>
Correct! And there are many other examples of missing detail from an abraded die-the many two feather varieties also found on the Buffalo nickel as well as the "Broken Nose" on many issues and the missing designer's initials on many coins.
<< <i>So the entire reverse was lapped resulting in the loss of enough exposed field material to bring it down to the level of the very shallow foreleg. Now that makes much more sense! >>
Yes. Go out in your back yard and dig out the grass in the shape of a buffalo's leg. That is your die. Now remove all of the grass around the buffalo's leg. The buffalo's leg disappears. >>
not sure i buy the whole "lapped" "polished" away theory for the 3 and 3 1/2 leggers but we have enough debate about enough coins going on just now. anyone got a laser micrometer and several dozen 3 and/or 3 1/2 leggers? . >>
Yes-we've diverged from the original issue somewhat.
<< <i>So the entire reverse was lapped resulting in the loss of enough exposed field material to bring it down to the level of the very shallow foreleg. Now that makes much more sense! >>
Yes. Go out in your back yard and dig out the grass in the shape of a buffalo's leg. That is your die. Now remove all of the grass around the buffalo's leg. The buffalo's leg disappears. >>
You can't just do that without leaving a huge raised area on the coin. Essentially, you have to remove the entire yard's grass [ie: completely lap the die] to not make a mess of it
Just my opinion is that we all know that the U.S. mint has made mistakes on it dies. So what if a apprentice or a new employee of the mint used a partially broken number 3 stamping tool? And a experience mint employee save the die by stamping a number 4 over the broken number 3. Anyone can see something is there and common sense would say it is a broken number 3.
<< <i>So the entire reverse was lapped resulting in the loss of enough exposed field material to bring it down to the level of the very shallow foreleg. Now that makes much more sense! >>
Yes. Go out in your back yard and dig out the grass in the shape of a buffalo's leg. That is your die. Now remove all of the grass around the buffalo's leg. The buffalo's leg disappears. >>
You can't just do that without leaving a huge raised area on the coin. Essentially, you have to remove the entire yard's grass [ie: completely lap the die] to not make a mess of it >>
That has been my thought as well. Grinding away the leg would seem to remove many more details as well.
There will always be a big market for the 1955/1955 doubled die cent. If you do not like it and there is a hole in your Lincoln cent album you can plug it up with a 1955/5 "poor man's double die"!
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
IMHO-- it ain't an overdate unless you clearly differentiate both dates.
An overdate is an overdate if it is an overdate, no matter how difficult it is to see. However, I've never understood why a barely visible overdate should command huge premiums. The 14/3 Buff is a perfect example. In fact, I've never owned one, because the prices never made sense to me.
BTW, I feel the same way about many "doubled die" varieties.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
In my opinion there is one clear thing associated with overdate or no overdate. That "thing" is M O N E Y. Those who own a coin under dispute will usually argue it IS an overdate. Those who only dream of owning such a coin will probably feel relieved that it isn't an overdate. Steve
<< <i>That "thing" is M O N E Y. Those who own a coin under dispute will usually argue it IS an overdate. Those who only dream of owning such a coin will probably feel relieved that it isn't an overdate. Steve >>
Steve,
Actually, most of the people who wrote me had studied the coin when considering purchasing one, and determined on their own it was not an overdate. IMO, if they believed it to be an overdate, they would have purchased one
<< <i>ANACS had come to the conclusion several years ago that anything resembling an overdate was in the master die as it shows up for all mints. They have not attributed them as such since then. CONECA also does not list this variety. >>
As Mr. Flynn, Bill Fivaz and others and I have discussed in an ongoing email discussion concerning this topic, there is another way that similar overdates can occur on multiple working dies without it being an overdated working hub.
When a die was hubbed back in that era, it was normal for the first impression to be incomplete. For example, everybody please look at the picture of the 1916/1916 doubled die nickel in the Redbook (Bill Fivaz's former coin). See how the first 1916 was not completely formed, and fades out an equal distance from the rim? The second impression was then complete.
Suppose for the sake of argument that a batch of working dies (10? who knows, but it is logical to assume that dies were hubbed in batches) was incompletely first hubbed with the impressions extending out to the tops of the 3's, just slightly less than the first impression on the 1916 DDO die.
For whatever reason the dies were not finished as 1913 dies, but rather were finished as 1914 dies. The only remnants of the 3's would be the tops of the 3's. The die shop might then have attempted to remove or disguise the tops of the 3's by tooling the dies, and indeed many of the 1914/3 dies do show tooling in this area.
This is just my theory, but I do sincerely believe that at least some of the 1914/3 dies are true overdates. Mr. Flynn has his theory that they are not. The collecting hobby is free to choose which theory to believe.
Tom D. >>
How would you "tool" a die which would have an incused image aside from removing metal and possibly affecting the "4" in the target date?
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>ANACS had come to the conclusion several years ago that anything resembling an overdate was in the master die as it shows up for all mints. They have not attributed them as such since then. CONECA also does not list this variety. >>
As Mr. Flynn, Bill Fivaz and others and I have discussed in an ongoing email discussion concerning this topic, there is another way that similar overdates can occur on multiple working dies without it being an overdated working hub. When a die was hubbed back in that era, it was normal for the first impression to be incomplete. For example, everybody please look at the picture of the 1916/1916 doubled die nickel in the Redbook (Bill Fivaz's former coin). See how the first 1916 was not completely formed, and fades out an equal distance from the rim? The second impression was then complete. Suppose for the sake of argument that a batch of working dies (10? who knows, but it is logical to assume that dies were hubbed in batches) was incompletely first hubbed with the impressions extending out to the tops of the 3's, just slightly less than the first impression on the 1916 DDO die. For whatever reason the dies were not finished as 1913 dies, but rather were finished as 1914 dies. The only remnants of the 3's would be the tops of the 3's. The die shop might then have attempted to remove or disguise the tops of the 3's by tooling the dies, and indeed many of the 1914/3 dies do show tooling in this area. This is just my theory, but I do sincerely believe that at least some of the 1914/3 dies are true overdates. Mr. Flynn has his theory that they are not. The collecting hobby is free to choose which theory to believe.
Tom D. >>
How would you "tool" a die which would have an incused image aside from removing metal and possibly affecting the "4" in the target date? >>
If you abraded an area on the working die, the working die would show incused polishing marks on the working die, raised on the coin. If hypothetically there was an underlying digit there, and you wanted to obscure it, you might abrade the outline of the underlying digit to make it appear as there is no digit underneath. Kevin
<< <i>ANACS had come to the conclusion several years ago that anything resembling an overdate was in the master die as it shows up for all mints. They have not attributed them as such since then. CONECA also does not list this variety. >>
As Mr. Flynn, Bill Fivaz and others and I have discussed in an ongoing email discussion concerning this topic, there is another way that similar overdates can occur on multiple working dies without it being an overdated working hub. When a die was hubbed back in that era, it was normal for the first impression to be incomplete. For example, everybody please look at the picture of the 1916/1916 doubled die nickel in the Redbook (Bill Fivaz's former coin). See how the first 1916 was not completely formed, and fades out an equal distance from the rim? The second impression was then complete. Suppose for the sake of argument that a batch of working dies (10? who knows, but it is logical to assume that dies were hubbed in batches) was incompletely first hubbed with the impressions extending out to the tops of the 3's, just slightly less than the first impression on the 1916 DDO die. For whatever reason the dies were not finished as 1913 dies, but rather were finished as 1914 dies. The only remnants of the 3's would be the tops of the 3's. The die shop might then have attempted to remove or disguise the tops of the 3's by tooling the dies, and indeed many of the 1914/3 dies do show tooling in this area. This is just my theory, but I do sincerely believe that at least some of the 1914/3 dies are true overdates. Mr. Flynn has his theory that they are not. The collecting hobby is free to choose which theory to believe.
Tom D. >>
How would you "tool" a die which would have an incused image aside from removing metal and possibly affecting the "4" in the target date? >>
If you abraded an area on the working die, the working die would show incused polishing marks on the working die, raised on the coin. If hypothetically there was an underlying digit there, and you wanted to obscure it, you might abrade the outline of the underlying digit to make it appear as there is no digit underneath. Kevin >>
What Kevin said. You can obscure a sharply outlined incused detail by tapering the edges of the outline with a graving tool and feathering it into the surrounding field The result will be a larger depression in the die, but hopefully one that will not be recognized as something specific, like an underdate.
To avoid reopening any arguments, let me repeat that this is my theory of what happened and not gospel. Roger Burdette has a new, different theory ATS which is equally valid, though I respectfully disagree with it.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
The series of overlays he has done are excellent and worth viewing.
Several Researches are attempting to resolve the decade old controversy surrounding the 1914/3 Buffalo Nickel. Is it a legitimate overdate? Or is it damage to a working hub? We are in need of MS specimens to photograph, particularly of the 2 dies which show what appears to be the bar of the 3 through the upper 4 of the date. Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated.
New Color Digital High Magnification Photographs 1913 Type 1 Obverse 1913 Type 2 Obverse 1913 Type 2 over 1: Proves that there was no Obverse design change affecting the date for the 1913 MH. 1914 1914 over 1913: Proves that the 1914 MH was made from a 3 digit partial 1913 MH. Note how the 191 align perfectly. 1913 over 1914: Shows how the top bar of the 3 extends just Right of the vertical bar of the 4. 1913 over 1914/3: Shows that the top bar of the 3 falls into the path of the die scratches in front of and behind the 4, though many die scratches are above the 4.
| Home | CONECA Master Listing | CPG Varieties | | Design Varieties | Mintmark Styles | Doubled Dies | RPMs & OMMs | | Books & Coins for Sale | Attribution Services | About the Author |
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I discussed this variety at length with Mike Ellis, and he believed that since the obverse of of the strongest ones showed massive clashing, the overdate was related to that and not actually an overdate. >>
There is no clashing in or around the date. The shape of the metal is no where near any reverse design element, letter or anything else. >>
I was going to say the same thing.
Not to add to the fire, but I also do not believe clashing has anything to do with the 1937-D 3-legged variety. Likely a clogged die. >>
The 1937-D 3-legged nickel is not the result of a clogged die. It has been proven that parts of the field of the die, which are the highest parts of the die as it is sitting on a work bench, were physically removed. A blob of grease or other material in the leg of the die would not affect the field.
TD >>
How can that be without either:
Removing the field evenly thus reducing the relief on the entire reverse
Or
Leaving a raised blob where the field was partially removed
1937-D 5C Three-Legged MS66 PCGS. The Three-Legged Buffalo nickel is a coin that has crossover appeal. Technically an error coin, it is now collected as a part of the regular Buffalo nickel series. The coins that are known are all from a single die, and curiously, we know who created this modern rarity. In 1937, a Mr. Young, who was then new to the mint and under pressure to complete a quota of coinage, took an emery stick and ground off evidence of die clashing from a pair of dies. However, in his haste he also inadvertently ground off part of the foreleg of the bison. While lower grade, circulated coins are always available for a price, Uncirculated pieces, especially coins that will fit into a Gem set of Buffalo nickels, are really quite elusive. Only three other MS66 coins have been certified by PCGS with none finer, while NGC has graded 13 with only one finer (2/05).
<< <i>From a Heritage auction description. This is, of course, simply impossible to be correct:
1937-D 5C Three-Legged MS66 PCGS. The Three-Legged Buffalo nickel is a coin that has crossover appeal. Technically an error coin, it is now collected as a part of the regular Buffalo nickel series. The coins that are known are all from a single die, and curiously, we know who created this modern rarity. In 1937, a Mr. Young, who was then new to the mint and under pressure to complete a quota of coinage, took an emery stick and ground off evidence of die clashing from a pair of dies. However, in his haste he also inadvertently ground off part of the foreleg of the bison. While lower grade, circulated coins are always available for a price, Uncirculated pieces, especially coins that will fit into a Gem set of Buffalo nickels, are really quite elusive. Only three other MS66 coins have been certified by PCGS with none finer, while NGC has graded 13 with only one finer (2/05). >>
What's not to believe? That story was published a long, long time ago, I believe in the Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine, and there is no reason to doubt it.
<< <i>
<< <i> I will now don my armor and duck awaiting your slings and arrows. >>
Where's that pic of the mob with torches and clubs? LOL
I pretty much agree, grease filled or even over polished or abraded dies are pretty common.
What I think gets attention is a 3 legged animal.
On the 22 plain cent the attention is because there are no 22 plains, if it was a year with plain cents maybe nobody would notice or care.
The other factor is that these got in the books or got a place in folders.
I've always felt that they aren't die varieties since the dies were created normal, they're die states.
People collect things based on their preferences and I won't knock it, everyone has different preferences and it seems there are enough followers to maintain the prices on these at their levels. >>
Thanks for your response. Totally agree on the 22-P(?) cent. I thought about this years ago as well and had planned on getting around to it here in a discussion. As far as any inclusion into a "regular" set of Lincolns/Buffalos I would not include the 22-P or 37-D 3 legged within my regular set. Guess it's the traditionalist in me. And that includes the 55-P double die cent which is a big favorite of mine. I am not influenced by the mere inclusion of errors in a "regular" coinage book/price guide, where by there inclusion attempts to nudge me to have them to constitute a complete regular set. They will remain in the error classification folders for my collecting purpose.
<< <i>
<< <i>From a Heritage auction description. This is, of course, simply impossible to be correct:
1937-D 5C Three-Legged MS66 PCGS. The Three-Legged Buffalo nickel is a coin that has crossover appeal. Technically an error coin, it is now collected as a part of the regular Buffalo nickel series. The coins that are known are all from a single die, and curiously, we know who created this modern rarity. In 1937, a Mr. Young, who was then new to the mint and under pressure to complete a quota of coinage, took an emery stick and ground off evidence of die clashing from a pair of dies. However, in his haste he also inadvertently ground off part of the foreleg of the bison. While lower grade, circulated coins are always available for a price, Uncirculated pieces, especially coins that will fit into a Gem set of Buffalo nickels, are really quite elusive. Only three other MS66 coins have been certified by PCGS with none finer, while NGC has graded 13 with only one finer (2/05). >>
What's not to believe? That story was published a long, long time ago, I believe in the Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine, and there is no reason to doubt it. >>
Tell me exactly how someone can ground off a RECESSED feature of the die with an emery stick???
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I discussed this variety at length with Mike Ellis, and he believed that since the obverse of of the strongest ones showed massive clashing, the overdate was related to that and not actually an overdate. >>
There is no clashing in or around the date. The shape of the metal is no where near any reverse design element, letter or anything else. >>
I was going to say the same thing.
Not to add to the fire, but I also do not believe clashing has anything to do with the 1937-D 3-legged variety. Likely a clogged die. >>
The 1937-D 3-legged nickel is not the result of a clogged die. It has been proven that parts of the field of the die, which are the highest parts of the die as it is sitting on a work bench, were physically removed. A blob of grease or other material in the leg of the die would not affect the field.
TD >>
How can that be without either:
Removing the field evenly thus reducing the relief on the entire reverse
Or
Leaving a raised blob where the field was partially removed
The entire reverse IS slightly reduced in relief-the beard is shorter; ; E PLURIBUS UNUM is weaker; and the entire bison is smaller. These die markers are one way to tell a genuine coin. The rear legs from the body down are weaker-the coin could legitimately be called a 2 1/2 legged Buffalo.
Meant to quote tradedollarnut. I'll try again.
The entire reverse IS slightly reduced in relief-the beard is shorter; ; E PLURIBUS UNUM is weaker; and the entire bison is smaller. These die markers are one way to tell a genuine coin. The rear legs from the body down are weaker-the coin could legitimately be called a 2 1/2 legged Buffalo.
<< <i>So the entire reverse was lapped resulting in the loss of enough exposed field material to bring it down to the level of the very shallow foreleg. Now that makes much more sense! >>
Yes. Go out in your back yard and dig out the grass in the shape of a buffalo's leg. That is your die. Now remove all of the grass around the buffalo's leg. The buffalo's leg disappears.
<< <i>
<< <i>So the entire reverse was lapped resulting in the loss of enough exposed field material to bring it down to the level of the very shallow foreleg. Now that makes much more sense! >>
Yes. Go out in your back yard and dig out the grass in the shape of a buffalo's leg. That is your die. Now remove all of the grass around the buffalo's leg. The buffalo's leg disappears. >>
not sure i buy the whole "lapped" "polished" away theory for the 3 and 3 1/2 leggers but we have enough debate about enough coins going on just now. anyone got a laser micrometer and several dozen 3 and/or 3 1/2 leggers?
.
<< <i>So the entire reverse was lapped resulting in the loss of enough exposed field material to bring it down to the level of the very shallow foreleg. Now that makes much more sense! >>
Correct! And there are many other examples of missing detail from an abraded die-the many two feather varieties also found on the Buffalo nickel as well as the "Broken Nose" on many issues and the missing designer's initials on many coins.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>So the entire reverse was lapped resulting in the loss of enough exposed field material to bring it down to the level of the very shallow foreleg. Now that makes much more sense! >>
Yes. Go out in your back yard and dig out the grass in the shape of a buffalo's leg. That is your die. Now remove all of the grass around the buffalo's leg. The buffalo's leg disappears. >>
not sure i buy the whole "lapped" "polished" away theory for the 3 and 3 1/2 leggers but we have enough debate about enough coins going on just now. anyone got a laser micrometer and several dozen 3 and/or 3 1/2 leggers?
. >>
Yes-we've diverged from the original issue somewhat.
<< <i>
<< <i>So the entire reverse was lapped resulting in the loss of enough exposed field material to bring it down to the level of the very shallow foreleg. Now that makes much more sense! >>
Yes. Go out in your back yard and dig out the grass in the shape of a buffalo's leg. That is your die. Now remove all of the grass around the buffalo's leg. The buffalo's leg disappears. >>
You can't just do that without leaving a huge raised area on the coin. Essentially, you have to remove the entire yard's grass [ie: completely lap the die] to not make a mess of it
Right now, as you read this, TDN has three of his gardeners digging up his front yard.
<< <i>Right now, as you read this, TDN has three of his gardeners digging up his front yard. >>
Actually, that's quite true. There used to be a prominent buffalo leg here but we refaced the whole yard.
<< <i>
<< <i>Right now, as you read this, TDN has three of his gardeners digging up his front yard. >>
Actually, that's quite true. There used to be a prominent buffalo leg here but we refaced the whole yard.
Love the stonework
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>So the entire reverse was lapped resulting in the loss of enough exposed field material to bring it down to the level of the very shallow foreleg. Now that makes much more sense! >>
Yes. Go out in your back yard and dig out the grass in the shape of a buffalo's leg. That is your die. Now remove all of the grass around the buffalo's leg. The buffalo's leg disappears. >>
You can't just do that without leaving a huge raised area on the coin. Essentially, you have to remove the entire yard's grass [ie: completely lap the die] to not make a mess of it >>
That has been my thought as well. Grinding away the leg would seem to remove many more details as well.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
An overdate is an overdate if it is an overdate, no matter how difficult it is to see. However, I've never understood why a barely visible overdate should command huge premiums. The 14/3 Buff is a perfect example. In fact, I've never owned one, because the prices never made sense to me.
BTW, I feel the same way about many "doubled die" varieties.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
That "thing" is M O N E Y. Those who own a coin under dispute will usually argue it IS an overdate. Those who only dream of owning such a coin will probably feel relieved that it isn't an overdate. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>That "thing" is M O N E Y. Those who own a coin under dispute will usually argue it IS an overdate. Those who only dream of owning such a coin will probably feel relieved that it isn't an overdate. Steve
Steve,
Actually, most of the people who wrote me had studied the coin when considering purchasing one, and determined on their own it was not an overdate.
IMO, if they believed it to be an overdate, they would have purchased one
Kevin
<< <i>
<< <i>ANACS had come to the conclusion several years ago that anything resembling an overdate was in the master die as it shows up for all mints. They have not attributed them as such since then. CONECA also does not list this variety. >>
As Mr. Flynn, Bill Fivaz and others and I have discussed in an ongoing email discussion concerning this topic, there is another way that similar overdates can occur on multiple working dies without it being an overdated working hub.
When a die was hubbed back in that era, it was normal for the first impression to be incomplete. For example, everybody please look at the picture of the 1916/1916 doubled die nickel in the Redbook (Bill Fivaz's former coin). See how the first 1916 was not completely formed, and fades out an equal distance from the rim? The second impression was then complete.
Suppose for the sake of argument that a batch of working dies (10? who knows, but it is logical to assume that dies were hubbed in batches) was incompletely first hubbed with the impressions extending out to the tops of the 3's, just slightly less than the first impression on the 1916 DDO die.
For whatever reason the dies were not finished as 1913 dies, but rather were finished as 1914 dies. The only remnants of the 3's would be the tops of the 3's. The die shop might then have attempted to remove or disguise the tops of the 3's by tooling the dies, and indeed many of the 1914/3 dies do show tooling in this area.
This is just my theory, but I do sincerely believe that at least some of the 1914/3 dies are true overdates. Mr. Flynn has his theory that they are not. The collecting hobby is free to choose which theory to believe.
Tom D. >>
How would you "tool" a die which would have an incused image aside from removing metal and possibly affecting the "4" in the target date?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>ANACS had come to the conclusion several years ago that anything resembling an overdate was in the master die as it shows up for all mints. They have not attributed them as such since then. CONECA also does not list this variety. >>
As Mr. Flynn, Bill Fivaz and others and I have discussed in an ongoing email discussion concerning this topic, there is another way that similar overdates can occur on multiple working dies without it being an overdated working hub.
When a die was hubbed back in that era, it was normal for the first impression to be incomplete. For example, everybody please look at the picture of the 1916/1916 doubled die nickel in the Redbook (Bill Fivaz's former coin). See how the first 1916 was not completely formed, and fades out an equal distance from the rim? The second impression was then complete.
Suppose for the sake of argument that a batch of working dies (10? who knows, but it is logical to assume that dies were hubbed in batches) was incompletely first hubbed with the impressions extending out to the tops of the 3's, just slightly less than the first impression on the 1916 DDO die.
For whatever reason the dies were not finished as 1913 dies, but rather were finished as 1914 dies. The only remnants of the 3's would be the tops of the 3's. The die shop might then have attempted to remove or disguise the tops of the 3's by tooling the dies, and indeed many of the 1914/3 dies do show tooling in this area.
This is just my theory, but I do sincerely believe that at least some of the 1914/3 dies are true overdates. Mr. Flynn has his theory that they are not. The collecting hobby is free to choose which theory to believe.
Tom D. >>
How would you "tool" a die which would have an incused image aside from removing metal and possibly affecting the "4" in the target date? >>
If you abraded an area on the working die, the working die would show incused polishing marks on the working die, raised on the coin. If hypothetically there was an underlying digit there, and you wanted to obscure it, you might abrade the outline of the underlying digit to make it appear as there is no digit underneath.
Kevin
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>ANACS had come to the conclusion several years ago that anything resembling an overdate was in the master die as it shows up for all mints. They have not attributed them as such since then. CONECA also does not list this variety. >>
As Mr. Flynn, Bill Fivaz and others and I have discussed in an ongoing email discussion concerning this topic, there is another way that similar overdates can occur on multiple working dies without it being an overdated working hub.
When a die was hubbed back in that era, it was normal for the first impression to be incomplete. For example, everybody please look at the picture of the 1916/1916 doubled die nickel in the Redbook (Bill Fivaz's former coin). See how the first 1916 was not completely formed, and fades out an equal distance from the rim? The second impression was then complete.
Suppose for the sake of argument that a batch of working dies (10? who knows, but it is logical to assume that dies were hubbed in batches) was incompletely first hubbed with the impressions extending out to the tops of the 3's, just slightly less than the first impression on the 1916 DDO die.
For whatever reason the dies were not finished as 1913 dies, but rather were finished as 1914 dies. The only remnants of the 3's would be the tops of the 3's. The die shop might then have attempted to remove or disguise the tops of the 3's by tooling the dies, and indeed many of the 1914/3 dies do show tooling in this area.
This is just my theory, but I do sincerely believe that at least some of the 1914/3 dies are true overdates. Mr. Flynn has his theory that they are not. The collecting hobby is free to choose which theory to believe.
Tom D. >>
How would you "tool" a die which would have an incused image aside from removing metal and possibly affecting the "4" in the target date? >>
If you abraded an area on the working die, the working die would show incused polishing marks on the working die, raised on the coin. If hypothetically there was an underlying digit there, and you wanted to obscure it, you might abrade the outline of the underlying digit to make it appear as there is no digit underneath.
Kevin >>
What Kevin said. You can obscure a sharply outlined incused detail by tapering the edges of the outline with a graving tool and feathering it into the surrounding field The result will be a larger depression in the die, but hopefully one that will not be recognized as something specific, like an underdate.
To avoid reopening any arguments, let me repeat that this is my theory of what happened and not gospel. Roger Burdette has a new, different theory ATS which is equally valid, though I respectfully disagree with it.
TD
The experts say nothing is there. My eyes see something so I must get my eyes checked.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
For anyone who may be interested in seeing the study Dr Wiles of CONECA is conducting I would suggest visiting the CONECA website here: http://varietyvista.com/index.htm
and selecting this topic- Detailed Study of the 1914/3 Buffalo Underway. Here's the link:http://varietyvista.com/Photographic Study of the 1914-3 Nickel.htm
The series of overlays he has done are excellent and worth viewing.
Several Researches are attempting to resolve the decade old controversy surrounding the 1914/3 Buffalo Nickel. Is it a legitimate overdate? Or is it damage to a working hub? We are in need of MS specimens to photograph, particularly of the 2 dies which show what appears to be the bar of the 3 through the upper 4 of the date. Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated.
New Color Digital High Magnification Photographs
1913 Type 1 Obverse
1913 Type 2 Obverse
1913 Type 2 over 1: Proves that there was no Obverse design change affecting the date for the 1913 MH.
1914
1914 over 1913: Proves that the 1914 MH was made from a 3 digit partial 1913 MH. Note how the 191 align perfectly.
1913 over 1914: Shows how the top bar of the 3 extends just Right of the vertical bar of the 4.
1913 over 1914/3: Shows that the top bar of the 3 falls into the path of the die scratches in front of and behind the 4, though many die scratches are above the 4.
| Home | CONECA Master Listing | CPG Varieties |
| Design Varieties | Mintmark Styles | Doubled Dies | RPMs & OMMs |
| Books & Coins for Sale | Attribution Services | About the Author |
Copyright James Wiles, 2014
Email: jameswiles@sbcglobal.net
1490 Trail View Lane
Frisco, TX 75034-2649Text