<< <i>Collectors have asked my over the years about this overdate. I went out of my way to tell them that it probably was an overdate, that it apparently occurred on multiple dies, and that a few have a real strong cross bar but a lot do not. If you want one for your set, find a clear one and then leave it at that. As far as sending it to pcgs for cert, good luck. i never recommended that but if you did and were lucky to get the 1914/3 designation then you made some nice $$$. As far as the s-mint, and especially the d-mint the results were a bit less obvious. Especially the d-mint which was feature in a Coin World article "Hitting for the cycle with the 1914/3-d nickel" which appeared in an early 2001 edition of Coin World. Apparently only one dies is involved and it has a die break on the obverse of the coin extending downwards from about 9 o'clock into the middle. The crossbar was just a faint wisp. Wonder if the s and d mint overdates will remain with their fs numbers. Once a coin has been assigned an FS number then it takes on a life of its own. Pretty near impossible and impractile to delist something once the horse is out of the barn. I seriously doubt fs-014.87, fs-014.88 and fs-014.89 will ever disappear, and these are the old style fs numbers, not the new ones. >>
Your right in that these coins will not disappear, and most likely they will still be listed as an overdate by some individuals.
Because something is listed as an overdate though, does not absolutely make it so. The Breenism days are over. One of the reasons I started writing was because I heard from to many collectors who would state, will Breen put it in writing, it must be true, even though I had absolute archive or physical evidence that it was not true. When I researched this variety and sent it to others, the majority of them replied that they had studied this variety before and concluded themselves it was not an overdate, more than anything else, this was a great feeling, collectors have advanced to reading and learning, but figuring stuff out for themselves. Its their money and investment, they should fully understand what they are buying. If they purchase something for a huge premium and it looses money in the future, they should understand the risks. I have seen collectors over the years leave the hobby because the had not fully understood grading, the coins, and other aspects that determine value, lost money and left the hobby.
Some would also argue that to classify this and other varieties as overdates, if you cannot prove it is something else, it must be by default be classified as an overdate, I would disagree, to be classified as an overdate, the physical evidence must support it being classified as an overdate.
There has to be a very high threshold for a variety to be labeled an overdate. The 1914/3 passed that test and was put in the CPG and on slabs. There has to be an even higher threshold to debunk the 1914/3 as not being an overdate. Unlike adding it as a variety, debunking it causes financial problems for collectors, dealers and certification companies.
If you don't agree that if should be an overdate, publish your concerns (which you did) and let the people who decide these matters, Bill, JT and Tom make their decision. They are the editors of the CPG and it is their call.
Once they make their decision, which has happened, you have to live with it. You can call it whatever you want and say whatever you want in your own books, but as far as the CPG goes, it looks settled to me.
<< <i>There has to be a very high threshold for a variety to be labeled an overdate. The 1914/3 passed that test and was put in the CPG and on slabs. There has to be an even higher threshold to debunk the 1914/3 as not being an overdate. Unlike adding it as a variety, debunking it causes financial problems for collectors, dealers and certification companies. If you don't agree that if should be an overdate, publish your concerns (which you did) and let the people who decide these matters, Bill, JT and Tom make their decision. They are the editors of the CPG and it is their call. Once they make their decision, which has happened, you have to live with it. You can call it whatever you want and say whatever you want in your own books, but as far as the CPG goes, it looks settled to me. >>
What is your first statement based upon? What is this high threshhold to be labeled as an overdate. When was there a test? Is this a test for CPG or the hobby? Are you stating that every variety that has been called an overdate went through this "threshold test"? How many varieties were called overdates by Breen, and accepted as overdates by the hobby because they were called overdates by someone, rather than an actual evaluation of the die variety?
On your second sentence, PCGS currently will only certify two of the 13 P varieties as overdates, ANACS and NGC will not certify them as overdates. They will cross reference the FS numbers, but do not believe they are overdates.
Your third statement is irrelevant, and IMO is typical. The important aspect is the truth. It sounds like from what your are saying, it is better to lie to collectors to protect the value, rather than the truth? When I refuted Breen's 1869/8 Two cent overdate as a repunched date, the physical evidence proved it could not be an overdate, the coin slowly went from its 10K value to its appropriate value. Plus, you have never refuted a variety as being incorrect from its previous attrubution?
So you believe that the consideration of causing financial problems for collectors, dealers, and certification companies, should make the threshold to debunk a variety higher than that to authenticate it? I would disagree, a variety should stand on its own evidence, it the evidence does not support a variety being attributed as such, then it cannot be called such. Its not rocket science. This particular variety, IMO was called an overdate based upon the general look and feel perspective, that was the supporting perspective Bill and Tom presented. When a detailed analysis of the actual physical evidence was done, it was found that it could not be an overdate.
WOW, your third statement is a bit of a stretch in my opinion, you state that Bill, JT, and Tom should be the individuals in the hobby who should make the determination if a variety is an overdate. The grading services make their own determination (for example, David Lange of NGC said graders at NGC did not believe it was an overdate, so it was no longer called an overdate), collectors make their own determination, each author makes their own determination. This is not an absolute anarchy. Are you stating that every overdate that is called an overdate in CP is correctly attributed?
Your right, they can determine what is in CP, but that does not mandate what it is called by the hobby. I wish you would learn to read, as that is what I said, individuals will call it what they want and they will most like still reference it as an overdate, that is their choice.
If you actually read my two previous posts, they were not in regard to what was going into CP. The first concerned with taxes and using the "look and feel" perspective, rather than the actual physical evidence.
The second was towards if it is in writing does not make it so, and that collectors were making the decisions for themselves.
If you are going to criticize, please quote, and reference directly, so that you can present arguments that are applicable, not just random statements.
IMO, collectors should read and learn everything about a subject, but should make the determination themselves as it is their money.
<< <i>There has to be a very high threshold for a variety to be labeled an overdate. The 1914/3 passed that test and was put in the CPG and on slabs. There has to be an even higher threshold to debunk the 1914/3 as not being an overdate. Unlike adding it as a variety, debunking it causes financial problems for collectors, dealers and certification companies.
If you don't agree that if should be an overdate, publish your concerns (which you did) and let the people who decide these matters, Bill, JT and Tom make their decision. They are the editors of the CPG and it is their call.
Once they make their decision, which has happened, you have to live with it. You can call it whatever you want and say whatever you want in your own books, but as far as the CPG goes, it looks settled to me. >>
To clarify, I had no say in the decision by Bill Fivaz and J.T. Stanton to retain the 1914/3 nickels in the Cherrypicker's Guide. I am a contributor, not an Editor. All I did was to report their decision, with their permission.
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.
Hey Kevin I do understand your point, that being said you do not need to disparage any one else that makes a statement as it devalues your opinion. You are a very good author and are very educated in the numismatic hobby and I value that in you but when you say statements like "I wish you would learn to read" to a professional in the field it makes your opinions of less value. Everyone on the board understands that you do not believe these to be overstrikes as you have stated this many times and vehemently. I would ask that you do the same as you expect of others and act in a professional manner as befits a person of your knowledge, stature in the field. Thank you for your time and consideration.
I find it curious that this overdate was not discovered until 1996. Also it must have been created on the master hub as it's on the 14-d & 14 p. Not easily seen and this might explain why it took so long for it to be recognized as a true overdate. In my opinion it's a true overdate.
The bitterness of "Poor Quality" is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
Not on the master hub and probably not on the master die either. Probably on a working hub which would have been used to make any number of working dies and would fully explain the presence of the "D" and "S" dies as well as the multiple Philly dies.
"I find it curious that this overdate was not discovered until 1996."
When was the 42/41-D dime and the 43/42 nickel discovered? Many years after they were minted? None of these overdates are obvious like the 42/41-P 10c or the 18/17 5c or 25c. It shouldn't be too surprising that it took a while to find them. Even something as obvious as the 1916/16 Buff wasn't reported until 1962 so these things do happen. Previously there was no reason to closely examine the date on 1914 nickels.
I think in the case of the 14/13 Buff that any listing in a reference guide should carry the disclaimer that the variety is controversial. Then let the individual collector make up his/her own mind. Though I am a strong proponent of the legitimacy of the variety I don't believe it should carry a huge premium in any case, especially since it involves multiple dies and is much more common than an overdate restricted to a single die like the aforementioned dime, quarter, and nickel (although I've heard that the 42/41-P dime involves two dies.) Once again-to see one of the strong 14/13 dies see James Wiles' study on the CONECA website.
Kevin, I think you have made a case for your views on this but now it is time to take a chill pill. Insulting Rick Snow as you did in your post, well, I find it offensive. Relax.
<< <i>Hey Kevin I do understand your point, that being said you do not need to disparage any one else that makes a statement as it devalues your opinion. You are a very good author and are very educated in the numismatic hobby and I value that in you but when you say statements like "I wish you would learn to read" to a professional in the field it makes your opinions of less value. Everyone on the board understands that you do not believe these to be overstrikes as you have stated this many times and vehemently. I would ask that you do the same as you expect of others and act in a professional manner as befits a person of your knowledge, stature in the field. Thank you for your time and consideration. >>
Please take into context. I responded to another set of posts. Rick posts in response to mine, taking it out of context, and making statements that are irrelevant, and some which are so absurd, and was said in a manner I found offensive, that I responded accordingly. The statement "I wish you would learn to read" is a saying reflective of a desire for someone to read something, respond to what was said, not take it out of context or something entirely different, which gives the appearance of someone having difficult of reading or understanding a statement, which I believed was applicable as Rick's post took my post completely out of context and nothing to do with the core of the comments in my post.
In addition, I believe Rick's statements were in retaliation for me requesting him to stop sending me emails requesting money for his book, and stated my opinion about this to him about this in my email to him. His addressing this now, the day after my email, when he has not addressed this subject of this post before is obvious IMO, and I will respond in kind. Rick and I also have history over the past 20 years, some of which has been negative.
<< <i>Bill and J.T. are the editors, and have editorial control. Go ahead and pick apart my statements. I think they stand on their merits. >>
How is this relevant to the statements I made previously? Bill and JT can do whatever this like in their book, that is there choice, and something I never addressed.
Please expand on what merits your statements stand on, especially on how Bill and JT are the determination on if a variety is classified as an overdate in the hobby If all varieties in CP that are classified as overdates are overdates There is a high threshold on a variety being classified as an overdate, and this variety passed that threshold, what is this threshhold, ...... That there should be a higher consideration for debunking a variety based on the consideration of loss of value
Kevin this is your statement as you have request for it to be quoted. "In addition, I believe Rick's statements were in retaliation for me requesting him to stop sending me emails requesting money for his book, and stated my opinion about this to him about this in my email to him. His addressing this now, the day after my email, when he has not addressed this subject of this post before is obvious IMO, and I will respond in kind. Rick and I also have history over the past 20 years, some of which has been negative."
I as a layman about your personal history with a member of this board do not care about that history. I am speaking purely about your current style of communication which appears to be very confrontational and is making you look less than positive in my eyes as I am speaking for no other. What ever your history is with Rick Snow should not be laundry listed on this site as it is between the two of you. You are making assumptions about your perceived motives regarding Ricks involvement in this post. His phone number is publicly available so you should be able to call him to discuss anything that is being emailed to you that you do not want, you can even put him on your email block list and never worry about it again. I truly hope you can see I am saying this out of respect as your comments are at the level of combativeness versus being about delivering concise information on your investigation of this overstrike. You are one of the people in the numismatic field that many follow because of your professional work, please leave it professional. I would hate to become jaded towards your work because of your aggressive attitude towards this issue and those involved with this overstrike. I think it is fantastic that I get to interact with people in the industry/hobby such as yourself, Rick Snow, John Wexler, Ron Pope and many many others, the information that we laymen in the hobby get here is invaluable and many read these post without comment. This is something to think on when emotions run high.
Thank you for your time and consideration, John Lost In Coins
<< <i>"I find it curious that this overdate was not discovered until 1996."
When was the 42/41-D dime and the 43/42 nickel discovered? Many years after they were minted? None of these overdates are obvious like the 42/41-P 10c or the 18/17 5c or 25c. It shouldn't be too surprising that it took a while to find them. Even something as obvious as the 1916/16 Buff wasn't reported until 1962 so these things do happen. Previously there was no reason to closely examine the date on 1914 nickels.
I think in the case of the 14/13 Buff that any listing in a reference guide should carry the disclaimer that the variety is controversial. Then let the individual collector make up his/her own mind. Though I am a strong proponent of the legitimacy of the variety I don't believe it should carry a huge premium in any case, especially since it involves multiple dies and is much more common than an overdate restricted to a single die like the aforementioned dime, quarter, and nickel (although I've heard that the 42/41-P dime involves two dies.) Once again-to see one of the strong 14/13 dies see James Wiles' study on the CONECA website. >>
I started subscribing to Coin World about 1967. I remember reading in the classified ads somebody was looking to buy 1942-D dimes with a "doubled tail." Obviously he had spotted the overdate, but was trying to buy them up before they publicized. Within a few years they were publicized, and I figured out what the buy ad was for.
The first two 1943/42-P nickels walked into Collectors CLearinghouse while I was running it, which places the time frame as Fall of 1976 to Fall of 1978.
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.
It seems that there's no trouble accepting as a legitimate variety or paying big bucks for the 1942/41-D dime where the underdigit is not very impressive either-maybe even not as evident as an early die state high grade example of die 1 or 2 of the 14/13 nickel.
I have had 6 or 7 that were close on the 42/1 LDS heavily abraded dies but have put them back into circ because I did not think they were close enough without serious 10x pluss magnification. but I have seen them in slabs. To each their own.
The1914/3 Buffalo Nickel so-called overdate variety makes no difference to me. I do not plan to ever own one. This is one of those conflicts that may never be settled. If I cannot clearly see an overdate, I am not interested in it no matter who says what. Many imaginary varieties have been de-bunked over the years. Wasn't this variety discovered because of a contest to see if anyone could discover a new overdate? Even if proven 100% without any doubt, to me it is still only a minor variety (like a 1955 poorman's double die cent) worth a few bucks more than a regular 1914 buffalo nickel. JMHO.
<< <i>The1914/3 Buffalo Nickel so-called overdate variety makes no difference to me. I do not plan to ever own one. This is one of those conflicts that may never be settled. If I cannot clearly see an overdate, I am not interested in it no matter who says what. Many imaginary varieties have been de-bunked over the years. Wasn't this variety discovered because of a contest to see if anyone could discover a new overdate? Even if proven 100% without any doubt, to me it is still only a minor variety (like a 1955 poorman's double die cent) worth a few bucks more than a regular 1914 buffalo nickel. JMHO.
Bob >>
Like I said-"I think in the case of the 14/13 Buff that any listing in a reference guide should carry the disclaimer that the variety is controversial. Then let the individual collector make up his/her own mind."
MOST varieties ARE minor in nature. Many are still avidly collected tho. It's strictly an individual thing. And you're right-the issue will never be settled to everyone's satisfaction.
The more that people know about and understand a given collectible, the more people tend to seek it out. Some people value rarity and exclusivity above all else. Others may value what they like looking at. I favor classifying all major and minor die variety coins and listing and certifying them as is best possible. The decision to include or exclude any potential numismatic rarity should not be left up to the whims of a relative few authors or publishers who pick and choose their own favorite die varieties to include within their publications. Any and all commonly known information and all published numismatic literature should be used by the grading services when asked to assign correct die designation attributions. The public should expect to pay reasonable costs for any specialized research required for the proper identification and classification of their own new discoveries, and of the lessor known variety coins, and the grading services should step up to the plate and do the job of researching, classifying, and certifying them. There is no good reason for the major grading services not to be certifying unknown or unpublished varieties, except perhaps for the costs involved. Ultimately, all coins should be listed with their proper classification and identification when possible. Those minor variety coins will quite possibly turn out to be the most rare ones produced or remaining, and given proper respect, they may also become some of our more valued ones. Most collectors value rarity and exclusivity and many of them can appreciate a relatively unknown collectible. Give the collector the fullest knowledge possible and then leave it up to them to decide where to spend their time and money. Supply and demand when coupled with full and easily accessed information will do a reasonable job of setting prices. Pull all shackles off of the free flow of numismatic information and the hobby will grow.
In addition, I believe Rick's statements were in retaliation for me requesting him to stop sending me emails requesting money for his book, and stated my opinion about this to him about this in my email to him. His addressing this now, the day after my email, when he has not addressed this subject of this post before is obvious IMO, and I will respond in kind. Rick and I also have history over the past 20 years, some of which has been negative.
How petty. There is no connection between your request to opt out (which is under your control, not mine, at the bottom of the email) from the email. I am sorry that you, as a researcher find no use in my work.
To clarify, the problem between Kevin and myself is purely professional. In his latest book on off-center clashed dies, he actually omitted crucial information and bent his research towards what looked like a pre-determined outcome. Lying by omission. If he wants to make a professional disagreement into a personal one, OK with me. There are many other problems inherent in his work.
pcgs has slabbed 95 1914 buffs as overdates. They are listed in their population report. Though ngc slabbed some 1914-p and 1914-s buffs as overdates, they have been removed from their census report.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
pcgs has slabbed 95 1914 buffs as overdates. They are listed in their population report. Though ngc slabbed some 1914-p and 1914-s buffs as overdates, they have been removed from their census report. Each pcgs coin out there in the coin-o-sphere is an "expert" for those who are of the opinion that the 1914/3 nickel is a true overdate, like it or not.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
As for the 1914/3-D it was paired with two different reverse dies, identifiable by the placement of the mint mark relative to five cents. These were referred to as "reverse die A" and "reverse die B". On some of the 1914/3-d buffs slabbed by SEGS, the specific reverse die was noted on the insert, as well as 1914/3-d and the appropriate fs number.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
<< <i>There is no good reason for the major grading services not to be certifying unknown or unpublished varieties, except perhaps for the costs involved. >>
<< <i>There is no good reason for the major grading services not to be certifying unknown or unpublished varieties, except perhaps for the costs involved. >>
[/URL]
How can they certify a variety if it is unknown? >>
By examining the coin and then writing it down. In 1964-65 when we wrote the original NECA master double die files, we classified the dies by the type of double die and it's pivot point (if needed). As for overdates, abraded dies, clashes, omm, rpm, imm, and rare die marriages, and ect., most of it is pretty easy to see, understand, and label. The grading services can then store and publish the information for future use.
When was the 42/41-D dime and the 43/42 nickel discovered? Many years after they were minted? None of these overdates are obvious like the 42/41-P 10c or the 18/17 5c or 25c. It shouldn't be too surprising that it took a while to find them. Even something as obvious as the 1916/16 Buff wasn't reported until 1962 so these things do happen. Previously there was no reason to closely examine the date on 1914 nickels.
Right.And only in much later times such as the present have huge values become associated with these varieties.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i><<1914/3 Buffalo Nickel Overdate to Remain in Cherrypickers’ Guide
Upon further review, Bill Fivaz, J.T. Stanton and I have decided that we stand by our original opinions that some 1914/3 nickels do exist as true overdates. We acknowledge that all of the 13 dies considered as P-mint overdates do show mint-made die tooling marks in the area of the crossbar of the 3 behind the top of the 4. We do not feel that this tooling, which does blur the outline of the 3 (as presumably the Mint’s engraver[s] intended to do) disqualifies the more obvious dies as being overdates. We acknowledge that some of the less obvious dies could reasonably be delisted as overdates.
To the best of our knowledge, Kevin Flynn stands by his opinion that the 1914/3 nickels cannot be accepted as true overdates because the mint-made die tooling marks have sufficiently obscured whatever they were intended to obscure, to the point that the things they were intended to obscure cannot be positively identified as the remains of previously-hubbed 3’s or partial 3’s. Bill, J.T. and I recognize Mr. Flynn’s right to his own opinion.
Various of the “experts” (Mr. Flynn’s quote marks) consulted in this review agree with Bill, J.T. and I. Others disagree, or remain unconvinced one way or the other. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. However, it cannot be said at this time that the hobby as a whole has rejected or refuted the 1914/3 overdates. Consequently, Bill and J.T. hereby announce that the 1914/3 Nickel will remain in the Cherrypickers’ Guide, and I agree with their decision.
Tom DeLorey
>>
I find that your knowledge of the issue is of great insight. But it is an opinion more than it is a fact. This issue may never be resolved amongst "experts" in the subject. The questioned overdate issue seems to be argued under significant magnification. Given the number of dies that the mint utilizes to produce coinage, there can be significant variation amongst the different dies that can only be verified with significant magnification. And while there are collectors of varieties such as these, this does not suggest that all of these varieties deserve significant acknowledgment. If a variety is not apparent to the naked eye, then it should not be considered to be part of a standard set. And inclusion into a date plus varieties set is OK, but not without controversy, as you well know.
A reasonable line needs to be drawn on what constitutes a variety.
OINK >>
Oink, these days people are dumping huge money on high population certified moderns. What ever happened to the concept of collecting rare coins and not just some over hyped marketing collectibles? Those minor varieties you dismiss should be classified and respected. Matters not if a collector assembles date and mint sets, collects by type, or in some other fashion, there is no reason to dismiss minor varieties as somehow inferior. Many relatively minor and hard to see double die cents are already bringing decent demand and sales prices. Variety die coin interest will increase with collector knowledge, and with the additional development of coin attributions. Those minor variety coins tend to be our hardest to find, and they are some of our rarest coins. Some collectors like owning those rare and obscure collectibles. They also respect and understand rarity. As the study of numismatics develops and with the advances in computers and the internet, the coin collecting world sits of the threshold of unparalleled advancement. We can now identify, attribute, document, photograph, store, and share that information like never before. The more that information flows to the public, the more that the demand for a given collectible will increase.
Yes, this family feud concerning the 1914/3 p, d, and s nickels will never end, it will eventually calm down away to a faint whimper. As for varieties in general I have told people to put them at the end of your collection and go backwards in time. For the buffalo nickel series, I include the 1918/7-d and the 1937-d three legged buffalo in with the 64 regular issue because they were in the sets long ago before variety-maina set in. People were looking for a three legged buff back in the 1930ies. After the 1938-d I would place the varieties, starting with the 1938-d/s and perhaps the 1938-d/d and then the 1936-d 3 and one half legged, and maybe the 1935 doubled die reverse, etc. This way you could put in what you wanted and leave it at that.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Comments
<< <i>Collectors have asked my over the years about this overdate. I went out of my way to tell them that it probably was an overdate, that it apparently occurred on multiple dies, and that
a few have a real strong cross bar but a lot do not. If you want one for your set, find a clear one and then leave it at that. As far as sending it to pcgs for cert, good luck. i never recommended that
but if you did and were lucky to get the 1914/3 designation then you made some nice $$$. As far as the s-mint, and especially the d-mint the results were a bit less obvious. Especially the d-mint which was feature in a Coin World article "Hitting for the cycle with the 1914/3-d nickel" which appeared in an early 2001 edition of Coin World. Apparently only one dies is involved and it has a die break on the obverse of the coin extending downwards from about 9 o'clock into the middle. The crossbar was just a faint wisp. Wonder if the s and d mint overdates will remain with their fs numbers. Once a coin has been assigned an FS number then it takes on a life of its own. Pretty near impossible and impractile to delist something once the horse is out of the barn. I seriously doubt fs-014.87, fs-014.88 and fs-014.89 will ever disappear, and these are the old style fs numbers, not the new ones. >>
Your right in that these coins will not disappear, and most likely they will still be listed as an overdate by some individuals.
Because something is listed as an overdate though, does not absolutely make it so. The Breenism days are over. One of the reasons I started writing was because I heard from to many collectors who would state, will Breen put it in writing, it must be true, even though I had absolute archive or physical evidence that it was not true. When I researched this variety and sent it to others, the majority of them replied that they had studied this variety before and concluded themselves it was not an overdate, more than anything else, this was a great feeling, collectors have advanced to reading and learning, but figuring stuff out for themselves. Its their money and investment, they should fully understand what they are buying. If they purchase something for a huge premium and it looses money in the future, they should understand the risks. I have seen collectors over the years leave the hobby because the had not fully understood grading, the coins, and other aspects that determine value, lost money and left the hobby.
Some would also argue that to classify this and other varieties as overdates, if you cannot prove it is something else, it must be by default be classified as an overdate, I would disagree, to be classified as an overdate, the physical evidence must support it being classified as an overdate.
Kevin
If you don't agree that if should be an overdate, publish your concerns (which you did) and let the people who decide these matters, Bill, JT and Tom make their decision. They are the editors of the CPG and it is their call.
Once they make their decision, which has happened, you have to live with it. You can call it whatever you want and say whatever you want in your own books, but as far as the CPG goes, it looks settled to me.
<< <i>There has to be a very high threshold for a variety to be labeled an overdate. The 1914/3 passed that test and was put in the CPG and on slabs. There has to be an even higher threshold to debunk the 1914/3 as not being an overdate. Unlike adding it as a variety, debunking it causes financial problems for collectors, dealers and certification companies.
If you don't agree that if should be an overdate, publish your concerns (which you did) and let the people who decide these matters, Bill, JT and Tom make their decision. They are the editors of the CPG and it is their call.
Once they make their decision, which has happened, you have to live with it. You can call it whatever you want and say whatever you want in your own books, but as far as the CPG goes, it looks settled to me. >>
What is your first statement based upon? What is this high threshhold to be labeled as an overdate. When was there a test? Is this a test for CPG or the hobby? Are you stating that every variety that has been called an overdate went through this "threshold test"? How many varieties were called overdates by Breen, and accepted as overdates by the hobby because they were called overdates by someone, rather than an actual evaluation of the die variety?
On your second sentence, PCGS currently will only certify two of the 13 P varieties as overdates, ANACS and NGC will not certify them as overdates. They will cross reference the FS numbers, but do not believe they are overdates.
Your third statement is irrelevant, and IMO is typical. The important aspect is the truth. It sounds like from what your are saying, it is better to lie to collectors to protect the value, rather than the truth? When I refuted Breen's 1869/8 Two cent overdate as a repunched date, the physical evidence proved it could not be an overdate, the coin slowly went from its 10K value to its appropriate value.
Plus, you have never refuted a variety as being incorrect from its previous attrubution?
So you believe that the consideration of causing financial problems for collectors, dealers, and certification companies, should make the threshold to debunk a variety higher than that to authenticate it? I would disagree, a variety should stand on its own evidence, it the evidence does not support a variety being attributed as such, then it cannot be called such. Its not rocket science. This particular variety, IMO was called an overdate based upon the general look and feel perspective, that was the supporting perspective Bill and Tom presented. When a detailed analysis of the actual physical evidence was done, it was found that it could not be an overdate.
WOW, your third statement is a bit of a stretch in my opinion, you state that Bill, JT, and Tom should be the individuals in the hobby who should make the determination if a variety is an overdate. The grading services make their own determination (for example, David Lange of NGC said graders at NGC did not believe it was an overdate, so it was no longer called an overdate), collectors make their own determination, each author makes their own determination. This is not an absolute anarchy.
Are you stating that every overdate that is called an overdate in CP is correctly attributed?
Your right, they can determine what is in CP, but that does not mandate what it is called by the hobby. I wish you would learn to read, as that is what I said, individuals will call it what they want and they will most like still reference it as an overdate, that is their choice.
If you actually read my two previous posts, they were not in regard to what was going into CP. The first concerned with taxes and using the "look and feel" perspective, rather than the actual physical evidence.
The second was towards if it is in writing does not make it so, and that collectors were making the decisions for themselves.
If you are going to criticize, please quote, and reference directly, so that you can present arguments that are applicable, not just random statements.
IMO, collectors should read and learn everything about a subject, but should make the determination themselves as it is their money.
Kevin
<< <i>There has to be a very high threshold for a variety to be labeled an overdate. The 1914/3 passed that test and was put in the CPG and on slabs. There has to be an even higher threshold to debunk the 1914/3 as not being an overdate. Unlike adding it as a variety, debunking it causes financial problems for collectors, dealers and certification companies.
If you don't agree that if should be an overdate, publish your concerns (which you did) and let the people who decide these matters, Bill, JT and Tom make their decision. They are the editors of the CPG and it is their call.
Once they make their decision, which has happened, you have to live with it. You can call it whatever you want and say whatever you want in your own books, but as far as the CPG goes, it looks settled to me. >>
To clarify, I had no say in the decision by Bill Fivaz and J.T. Stanton to retain the 1914/3 nickels in the Cherrypicker's Guide. I am a contributor, not an Editor. All I did was to report their decision, with their permission.
TD
BHNC #203
'
When was the 42/41-D dime and the 43/42 nickel discovered? Many years after they were minted? None of these overdates are obvious like the 42/41-P 10c or the 18/17 5c or 25c. It shouldn't be too surprising that it took a while to find them. Even something as obvious as the 1916/16 Buff wasn't reported until 1962 so these things do happen. Previously there was no reason to closely examine the date on 1914 nickels.
I think in the case of the 14/13 Buff that any listing in a reference guide should carry the disclaimer that the variety is controversial. Then let the individual collector make up his/her own mind. Though I am a strong proponent of the legitimacy of the variety I don't believe it should carry a huge premium in any case, especially since it involves multiple dies and is much more common than an overdate restricted to a single die like the aforementioned dime, quarter, and nickel (although I've heard that the 42/41-P dime involves two dies.) Once again-to see one of the strong 14/13 dies see James Wiles' study on the CONECA website.
<< <i>Hey Kevin I do understand your point, that being said you do not need to disparage any one else that makes a statement as it devalues your opinion. You are a very good author and are very educated in the numismatic hobby and I value that in you but when you say statements like "I wish you would learn to read" to a professional in the field it makes your opinions of less value. Everyone on the board understands that you do not believe these to be overstrikes as you have stated this many times and vehemently. I would ask that you do the same as you expect of others and act in a professional manner as befits a person of your knowledge, stature in the field. Thank you for your time and consideration. >>
Please take into context. I responded to another set of posts. Rick posts in response to mine, taking it out of context, and making statements that are irrelevant, and some which are so absurd, and was said in a manner I found offensive, that I responded accordingly. The statement "I wish you would learn to read" is a saying reflective of a desire for someone to read something, respond to what was said, not take it out of context or something entirely different, which gives the appearance of someone having difficult of reading or understanding a statement, which I believed was applicable as Rick's post took my post completely out of context and nothing to do with the core of the comments in my post.
In addition, I believe Rick's statements were in retaliation for me requesting him to stop sending me emails requesting money for his book, and stated my opinion about this to him about this in my email to him. His addressing this now, the day after my email, when he has not addressed this subject of this post before is obvious IMO, and I will respond in kind. Rick and I also have history over the past 20 years, some of which has been negative.
for instance:
If I thought the 1913 V Nickel could stir the passions of numismatists , you should have seen what never happened in 1914.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>Bill and J.T. are the editors, and have editorial control. Go ahead and pick apart my statements. I think they stand on their merits. >>
How is this relevant to the statements I made previously? Bill and JT can do whatever this like in their book, that is there choice, and something I never addressed.
Please expand on what merits your statements stand on, especially on how
Bill and JT are the determination on if a variety is classified as an overdate in the hobby
If all varieties in CP that are classified as overdates are overdates
There is a high threshold on a variety being classified as an overdate, and this variety passed that threshold, what is this threshhold, ......
That there should be a higher consideration for debunking a variety based on the consideration of loss of value
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
I as a layman about your personal history with a member of this board do not care about that history. I am speaking purely about your current style of communication which appears to be very confrontational and is making you look less than positive in my eyes as I am speaking for no other. What ever your history is with Rick Snow should not be laundry listed on this site as it is between the two of you. You are making assumptions about your perceived motives regarding Ricks involvement in this post. His phone number is publicly available so you should be able to call him to discuss anything that is being emailed to you that you do not want, you can even put him on your email block list and never worry about it again. I truly hope you can see I am saying this out of respect as your comments are at the level of combativeness versus being about delivering concise information on your investigation of this overstrike. You are one of the people in the numismatic field that many follow because of your professional work, please leave it professional. I would hate to become jaded towards your work because of your aggressive attitude towards this issue and those involved with this overstrike. I think it is fantastic that I get to interact with people in the industry/hobby such as yourself, Rick Snow, John Wexler, Ron Pope and many many others, the information that we laymen in the hobby get here is invaluable and many read these post without comment. This is something to think on when emotions run high.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
John Lost In Coins
<< <i>"I find it curious that this overdate was not discovered until 1996."
When was the 42/41-D dime and the 43/42 nickel discovered? Many years after they were minted? None of these overdates are obvious like the 42/41-P 10c or the 18/17 5c or 25c. It shouldn't be too surprising that it took a while to find them. Even something as obvious as the 1916/16 Buff wasn't reported until 1962 so these things do happen. Previously there was no reason to closely examine the date on 1914 nickels.
I think in the case of the 14/13 Buff that any listing in a reference guide should carry the disclaimer that the variety is controversial. Then let the individual collector make up his/her own mind. Though I am a strong proponent of the legitimacy of the variety I don't believe it should carry a huge premium in any case, especially since it involves multiple dies and is much more common than an overdate restricted to a single die like the aforementioned dime, quarter, and nickel (although I've heard that the 42/41-P dime involves two dies.) Once again-to see one of the strong 14/13 dies see James Wiles' study on the CONECA website. >>
I started subscribing to Coin World about 1967. I remember reading in the classified ads somebody was looking to buy 1942-D dimes with a "doubled tail." Obviously he had spotted the overdate, but was trying to buy them up before they publicized. Within a few years they were publicized, and I figured out what the buy ad was for.
The first two 1943/42-P nickels walked into Collectors CLearinghouse while I was running it, which places the time frame as Fall of 1976 to Fall of 1978.
TD
Bob
<< <i>The1914/3 Buffalo Nickel so-called overdate variety makes no difference to me. I do not plan to ever own one. This is one of those conflicts that may never be settled. If I cannot clearly see an overdate, I am not interested in it no matter who says what. Many imaginary varieties have been de-bunked over the years. Wasn't this variety discovered because of a contest to see if anyone could discover a new overdate? Even if proven 100% without any doubt, to me it is still only a minor variety (like a 1955 poorman's double die cent) worth a few bucks more than a regular 1914 buffalo nickel. JMHO.
Bob >>
Like I said-"I think in the case of the 14/13 Buff that any listing in a reference guide should carry the disclaimer that the variety is controversial. Then let the individual collector make up his/her own mind."
MOST varieties ARE minor in nature. Many are still avidly collected tho. It's strictly an individual thing. And you're right-the issue will never be settled to everyone's satisfaction.
Some people value rarity and exclusivity above all else.
Others may value what they like looking at.
I favor classifying all major and minor die variety coins and listing and certifying them as is best possible.
The decision to include or exclude any potential numismatic rarity should not be left up to the whims of a relative few authors or publishers who pick and choose their own favorite die varieties to include within their publications.
Any and all commonly known information and all published numismatic literature should be used by the grading services when asked to assign correct die designation attributions.
The public should expect to pay reasonable costs for any specialized research required for the proper identification and classification of their own new discoveries, and of the lessor known variety coins, and the grading services should step up to the plate and do the job of researching, classifying, and certifying them.
There is no good reason for the major grading services not to be certifying unknown or unpublished varieties, except perhaps for the costs involved.
Ultimately, all coins should be listed with their proper classification and identification when possible.
Those minor variety coins will quite possibly turn out to be the most rare ones produced or remaining, and given proper respect, they may also become some of our more valued ones.
Most collectors value rarity and exclusivity and many of them can appreciate a relatively unknown collectible.
Give the collector the fullest knowledge possible and then leave it up to them to decide where to spend their time and money.
Supply and demand when coupled with full and easily accessed information will do a reasonable job of setting prices.
Pull all shackles off of the free flow of numismatic information and the hobby will grow.
I still like the late Walter Breen, despite his personal and professional problems.
buffnixx
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
How petty. There is no connection between your request to opt out (which is under your control, not mine, at the bottom of the email) from the email. I am sorry that you, as a researcher find no use in my work.
To clarify, the problem between Kevin and myself is purely professional. In his latest book on off-center clashed dies, he actually omitted crucial information and bent his research towards what looked like a pre-determined outcome. Lying by omission. If he wants to make a professional disagreement into a personal one, OK with me. There are many other problems inherent in his work.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
"reverse die B". On some of the 1914/3-d buffs slabbed by SEGS, the specific reverse die was noted on the insert, as well as 1914/3-d and the appropriate fs number.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
<< <i>There is no good reason for the major grading services not to be certifying unknown or unpublished varieties, except perhaps for the costs involved.
>>
How can they certify a variety if it is unknown?
<< <i>
<< <i>There is no good reason for the major grading services not to be certifying unknown or unpublished varieties, except perhaps for the costs involved.
>>
How can they certify a variety if it is unknown? >>
By examining the coin and then writing it down.
In 1964-65 when we wrote the original NECA master double die files, we classified the dies by the type of double die and it's pivot point (if needed).
As for overdates, abraded dies, clashes, omm, rpm, imm, and rare die marriages, and ect., most of it is pretty easy to see, understand, and label.
The grading services can then store and publish the information for future use.
Right.And only in much later times such as the present have huge values become associated with these varieties.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i><<1914/3 Buffalo Nickel Overdate to Remain in Cherrypickers’ Guide
Upon further review, Bill Fivaz, J.T. Stanton and I have decided that we stand by our original opinions that some 1914/3 nickels do exist as true overdates. We acknowledge that all of the 13 dies considered as P-mint overdates do show mint-made die tooling marks in the area of the crossbar of the 3 behind the top of the 4. We do not feel that this tooling, which does blur the outline of the 3 (as presumably the Mint’s engraver[s] intended to do) disqualifies the more obvious dies as being overdates. We acknowledge that some of the less obvious dies could reasonably be delisted as overdates.
To the best of our knowledge, Kevin Flynn stands by his opinion that the 1914/3 nickels cannot be accepted as true overdates because the mint-made die tooling marks have sufficiently obscured whatever they were intended to obscure, to the point that the things they were intended to obscure cannot be positively identified as the remains of previously-hubbed 3’s or partial 3’s. Bill, J.T. and I recognize Mr. Flynn’s right to his own opinion.
Various of the “experts” (Mr. Flynn’s quote marks) consulted in this review agree with Bill, J.T. and I. Others disagree, or remain unconvinced one way or the other. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. However, it cannot be said at this time that the hobby as a whole has rejected or refuted the 1914/3 overdates. Consequently, Bill and J.T. hereby announce that the 1914/3 Nickel will remain in the Cherrypickers’ Guide, and I agree with their decision.
Tom DeLorey
>>
I find that your knowledge of the issue is of great insight. But it is an opinion more than it is a fact. This issue may never be resolved amongst "experts" in the subject. The questioned overdate issue seems to be argued under significant magnification. Given the number of dies that the mint utilizes to produce coinage, there can be significant variation amongst the different dies that can only be verified with significant magnification. And while there are collectors of varieties such as these, this does not suggest that all of these varieties deserve significant acknowledgment. If a variety is not apparent to the naked eye, then it should not be considered to be part of a standard set. And inclusion into a date plus varieties set is OK, but not without controversy, as you well know.
A reasonable line needs to be drawn on what constitutes a variety.
OINK >>
Oink, these days people are dumping huge money on high population certified moderns.
What ever happened to the concept of collecting rare coins and not just some over hyped marketing collectibles?
Those minor varieties you dismiss should be classified and respected.
Matters not if a collector assembles date and mint sets, collects by type, or in some other fashion, there is no reason to dismiss minor varieties as somehow inferior. Many relatively minor and hard to see double die cents are already bringing decent demand and sales prices. Variety die coin interest will increase with collector knowledge, and with the additional development of coin attributions. Those minor variety coins tend to be our hardest to find, and they are some of our rarest coins. Some collectors like owning those rare and obscure collectibles. They also respect and understand rarity.
As the study of numismatics develops and with the advances in computers and the internet, the coin collecting world sits of the threshold of unparalleled advancement. We can now identify, attribute, document, photograph, store, and share that information like never before.
The more that information flows to the public, the more that the demand for a given collectible will increase.
Bring it on. Bring it on.
As for varieties in general I have told people to put them at the end of your collection and go backwards in time. For the buffalo nickel
series, I include the 1918/7-d and the 1937-d three legged buffalo in with the 64 regular issue because they were in the sets long
ago before variety-maina set in. People were looking for a three legged buff back in the 1930ies. After the 1938-d I would place
the varieties, starting with the 1938-d/s and perhaps the 1938-d/d and then the 1936-d 3 and one half legged, and maybe the
1935 doubled die reverse, etc. This way you could put in what you wanted and leave it at that.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Second Old thread bump hoping for more recent photos. Does pcgs still attribute this variety?
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
Still active.
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1914-3-5c/93924
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
One is on GreatCollections right now. Starting bid? $11,000!
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."