A question about "complete" Buffalo nickel sets.
OnWithTheHunt
Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭✭✭
Forum member Analyst raised this question in another thread and I thought it was interesting enough to be discussed on its own.
<< <i>While researching and writing my most recent article, I thought a lot about the dates and varieties that are needed, or should be included, in a complete set of Bufflao Nickels 'by date' (and U.S. Mint location). I was astonished that leading guides list the 1935 Doubled Reverse and the claimed 1936-D 'Three and a Half Legs' varieties along with the regular date and mint combinations. These seem obscure to me. Also, as the 1937-D '3 Legs' is a mint error, then should it be included in standard sets 'by date' (and mint)? What are the thoughts on these points of the members of this forum?
Classic U.S. Coins for less than $500 each, Part 9: Buffalo Nickels
insightful10{{at}} gmail.com >>
As a longtime collector of this series, IMO it is up to an individual to determine what to include in their own Buffalo collection. I have seen "complete" sets that range from the basic 64 coin collection, (standard date and MM with no varieties), 65 coins including the 38-D/S, 66 with the 3-legger, 67 coins with the 18/7-D overdate or even more, if doubled dies such as the 16/16, 35DDR, 5-legger, etc are included.
My personal collection has 70 coins as the main set, which is limited to that number because it is housed in a Capital holder with that many spaces, but I know of one collector who has many more because he includes as many of the known varieties as he can find.
I also could not disagree more strongly with the opinion that the 1935 doubled die is "obscure." It is a major variety, especially in higher grades.
<< <i>While researching and writing my most recent article, I thought a lot about the dates and varieties that are needed, or should be included, in a complete set of Bufflao Nickels 'by date' (and U.S. Mint location). I was astonished that leading guides list the 1935 Doubled Reverse and the claimed 1936-D 'Three and a Half Legs' varieties along with the regular date and mint combinations. These seem obscure to me. Also, as the 1937-D '3 Legs' is a mint error, then should it be included in standard sets 'by date' (and mint)? What are the thoughts on these points of the members of this forum?
Classic U.S. Coins for less than $500 each, Part 9: Buffalo Nickels
insightful10{{at}} gmail.com >>
As a longtime collector of this series, IMO it is up to an individual to determine what to include in their own Buffalo collection. I have seen "complete" sets that range from the basic 64 coin collection, (standard date and MM with no varieties), 65 coins including the 38-D/S, 66 with the 3-legger, 67 coins with the 18/7-D overdate or even more, if doubled dies such as the 16/16, 35DDR, 5-legger, etc are included.
My personal collection has 70 coins as the main set, which is limited to that number because it is housed in a Capital holder with that many spaces, but I know of one collector who has many more because he includes as many of the known varieties as he can find.
I also could not disagree more strongly with the opinion that the 1935 doubled die is "obscure." It is a major variety, especially in higher grades.
Proud recipient of the coveted "You Suck Award" (9/3/10).
0
Comments
Collectors need to see through the hype and promotion surrounding varieties and make their own decisions.
Because like Redbook in the past, (like it or not), they are probably becoming the source for "what is required" for many series.
But I personally would draw the line with some of the more obscure varieties, like 3.5 legs, 2 feathers, etc....if specialists wish to pursue these, that's great - but don't poo-poo my
set because it lacks these.
<< <i>collectors should decide for themselves what they consider to be complete. A satisfying and less expensive complete set can be accomplished by collecting just a date set without regard to mint marks or varieties. >>
Date set-a great idea and since I can't afford the Date/Mint set an affordable idea, too. That's what I have-all nice Mint state coins and at a small fraction of the Date/Mint set. Makes for a very impressive and satisfying display. I have date sets of Mercury dimes, Peace Dollars, and a few others, too. As to Buffalo varieties, the four listed in the "Red Book" should be included in any Date/Mint/Major Varieties set. The 1935 1-R-IV/DDR001 shouldn't be slammed-it's a nice strong doubled die (easily as strong as many of the accepted Lincoln cent d dies) and well worth inclusion in a variety set. As to the rest it's mainly reserved for specialists. I used to have a complete set of the two feather coins for example, which made for a nice sub-set. As has been stated-to each their own-there's no reason to ridicule anyone for collecting what they like to collect.
<< <i>collectors should decide for themselves what they consider to be complete. A satisfying and less expensive complete set can be accomplished by collecting just a date set without regard to mint marks or varieties. >>
I also think a pure Philly run date set in MS64 would be a fun project patiently selecting each coin for strike and matched surfaces.
The 1921 would be the only example which would be a bit more expensive then the rest.
What is the beef here!!!!
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
<< <i>IMHO, mint error coins should not be included in any "set". It is just that, an error. >>
Hey now
OnWithTheHunt: <<IMO it is up to an individual to determine what to include in their own Buffalo collection.>>
Barndog: <<Collectors should decide for themselves what they consider to be complete>>
First, many of the readers who come across my articles while browsing are not as knowledgeable as some of the collectors who actively participate in this forum. Many of them are seeking advice, guidance and points of view; they do not wish to define sets on their own.
Second, price guides, encyclopedias, set registry sites and publishers of coin albums all "determine what" is included in sets of Buffalo Nickels. They are telling collectors to include some and exclude others for a complete set.
I feel that one of my roles to critically analyze such determinations by influential publishers, especially when I regard such determinations as being illogical, unfair or otherwise harmful to beginners and intermediate level collectors.
Third, I stand by my theory that it more fun and meaningful to complete a set in accordance with rules that are widely accepted. Someone collecting by his own rules could say that ten Buffalo Nickels amounts to a complete set or could assemble some other grouping that makes no sense to anyone else. Would a collector who creates his own rules be missing a large part of the hobby experience?
Classic U.S. Coins for less than $500 each, Part 8: Mercury Dimes
Classic U.S. Coins for less than $500 each, Part 9: Buffalo Nickels
291Fifth: <<The 1935 DD is just another promoted variety. It is of little importance and is not needed for a complete date/mm set of Buffalo Nickels.>>
Though true, this statement is a little mean to people who specialize in doubled die errors.
291Fifth: <<The same goes for the 1936-D 3 1/2 leg ...>>
It is not "the same." This variety is largely fictional as I explain.
WalkerGuy: <<I have no problem having long time classic coins, like the 37D 3 legger, as part of the complete Buffalo set - along with the 22 Plain and 55 double die in the Lincoln series.
But [not] some of the more obscure varieties, like 3.5 legs, 2 feathers>>
This statement is somewhat consistent with my points in my articles, especially the importance of learning about the traditions and evolved culture of coin collecting in the U.S. As for the "37-D 3 legger," it has had a very noticeable role in the history of coin collecting. There should be a healthy debate as to whether it is a requirement for a set of Buffalo Nickels.
In any event, I appreciate that some of the members of this forum are reading my articles.
insightful10 {at} gmail.com
<< <i> I stand by my theory that it more fun and meaningful to complete a set in accordance with rules that are widely accepted. Someone collecting by his own rules could say that ten Buffalo Nickels amounts to a complete set or could assemble some other grouping that makes no sense to anyone else. Would a collector who creates his own rules be missing a large part of the hobby experience? >>
Really? So yes, please tell me what I MUST collect in order to be satisfied with MY hobby. While you are at it, please tell me which GRADE will keep me most satisfied with MY hobby. When someone advises me that "widely accepted" is the standard by which others should act, I just have to roll my eyes and wonder.
Research, in my opinion, should assist collectors in the choices they make...not try to direct their choices.
Please explain unless you have done so elsewhere. If you have done so elsewhere please direct me to your statement(s) and conclusions(s).
At any rate-do your own thing. Collect what YOU want to collect and don't let anyone tell what or what NOT to collect.
Obviously Mr. Teichman is not a fan of varieties of any type. For me varieties add a bit of "spice" to collecting as opposed to the mundane (in my opinion) date-Mint mark set-after over 50 years of collecting and specializing in this series things got a little boring so I ventured into the variety segment 25 years ago and have been hooked ever since. I believe many collectors feel the same way.
<< <i>A 'complete' set is defined by the individual collector.....whether varieties or errors are included is a personal choice and the 'opinions' of others are just that...opinions, and not requirements. Enjoy the hobby....Cheers, RickO >>
Absolutely. That's the bottom line after all is said and done.
KayneKwest: <<the mostly missing leg on the '36-D is nearly as noticeable as it is on the '37-D. Nor is it the only 3 1/2 legged variety in the series-there are at least six others.>>
IMO, the leg is there; the animal on this variety has all four legs. Most collectors would agree that varieties with weakly defined areas do not generally constitute issues that are needed for a set 'by date' and mint location. In any event, I appreciate the fact that Kayne has expressed a differing viewpoint. I am never expecting everyone to agree with all of my positions.
Kayne: <<Mr. Teichman is not a fan of varieties of any type. For me varieties add a bit of "spice" to collecting as opposed to the mundane (in my opinion) date-Mint mark set-after over 50 years of collecting and specializing in this series things got a little boring so I ventured into the variety segment 25 years ago and have been hooked ever since. I believe many collectors feel the same way.>>
This statement is unfair, misleading and not a logical interpretation of the pertinent text in my article. Teichman was not criticizing the collecting of varieties; Saul was pointing out that dealers often seek to promote obscure varieties for profit and mislead beginning collectors into thinking that some obscure varieties, which sometimes cost tremendous premiums, are needed for complete sests 'by date' (and mint location). Also, consider John Albanese's remarks in my article on Mercury Dimes:
Classic U.S. Coins for less than $500 each, Part 8: Mercury Dimes
Ricko: <<A 'complete' set is defined by the individual collector.....whether varieties or errors are included is a personal choice and the 'opinions' of others are just that...opinions, and not requirements.>>
Obviously, we are all aware that people who buy items for their collections are making decisions about what to buy. Is this simplistic statement helpful to anyone? Further, my relevant points in my article and in my above post and are entirely ignored by Ricko. In particular, please consider the second point above:
<Second, price guides, encyclopedias, set registry sites and publishers of coin albums all "determine what" is included in sets of Buffalo Nickels. They are telling collectors to include some and exclude others for a complete set. >
Clearly, beginning collectors and even advanced registry set builders are being told what to include in sets. It makes sense for me to critically analyze such guides and to raise points for discussion. Besides, it is ridiculous for Ricko to suggest that all beginning collectors are suited to or will feel comfortable defining their own sets. Surely, many collectors, though not all, benefit from reading about the reasons why some issues and not others are or should be included in sets.
Also, it is curious that Ricko and Kayne seem to be implying that grouping coins together as a "set" that makes no sense to anyone else is just as logical as assembling a set that most experts and interested collectors would regard as complete or nearly so. Although I never expect everyone to agree with my views, I was not expecting a challenge to my theory that beginning collectors, who are interested in building sets, should assemble sets in accordance with established rules that evolved within the culture of coin collecting.
This statement is unfair, misleading and not a logical interpretation of the pertinent text in my article. Teichman was not criticizing the collecting of varieties; Saul was pointing out that dealers often seek to promote obscure varieties for profit and mislead beginning collectors into thinking that some obscure varieties, which sometimes cost tremendous premiums, are needed for complete sests 'by date' (and mint location). Also, consider John Albanese's remarks in my article on Mercury Dimes:"
I agree it's a bad thing to try to mislead a beginning collector with varieties whose only merit is that they're "hyped" but that was exactly the case with the universally accepted 1938-D D/S when it first turned up-those claiming that it was "extremely rare" and charging commensurate prices when they knew fully well that thousands of original bank wrapped rolls of the date existed and that it was likely that many more would likely turn up. As far as I know the 1936-d 3 1/2 legged has never been heavily promoted nor has the 1935 doubled die reverse. As to the '35, it is, IMO just as important and significant as the D/S which, with the exception of a few people who might be able to see it without a loupe, isn't nearly as evident as the 1935 which can generally be seen with the naked eye.
<< <i>A 'complete' set is defined by the individual collector.....whether varieties or errors are included is a personal choice and the 'opinions' of others are just that...opinions, and not requirements. Enjoy the hobby....Cheers, RickO >>
...THIS
some might say complete set is subjective!
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
and the "Top 8" varieties or what ever way you choose. In my book on abraded die varieties I break the better varieties in the set down by the "Fab Four", the "Great Eight"' the "Dirty Dozen", the "Sweet Sixteen", and the "Top Twenty"-just my opinion of course. There is no wrong way or right way to collect these-a collection of two feather varieties, 3 1/2 legged varieties, or even the "Masked Indian/Lone Ranger" varieties would be an interesting undertaking.
KayneKwest: << As far as I know the 1936-d 3 1/2 legged has never been heavily promoted nor has the 1935 doubled die reverse.>>
Doubled Dies are usually not included in a set 'by date' (and U.S. Mint location). 1916/1916 nickels and 1955/1955 Lincolns are exceptions as the doubling relates to the numerals of the 'the date' and are thus linked to the concept of a set 'by date' and mint.
Although it obviously relates to the mintmark, the 1938 D/S variety is so subtle that it is debatable as to whether it is needed for a set 'by date and mint.' Logical arguments could be put forth either way.
KayneKwest: <<As to the '35, it is, IMO just as important and significant as the D/S which, with the exception of a few people who might be able to see it without a loupe, isn't nearly as evident as the 1935 which can generally be seen with the naked eye.>>
No, a doubled die reverse variety is not part of a set 'by date' (and mint location). It might be a fascinating supplement or complement to such a set, though, given how such sets are usually defined, it would not be necessary. I really believe that it is wrong for it to be implied in some leading guides that it is needed for such a set.
In many series of U.S. coins, there are a few, or more than a few, noticeable Doubled Die vareities. These tend to be of interest to collectors of die varieties and to collectors of Mint Errors, not to people who are collecting 'by date' and mint location.
Please keep in mind that my article was directed to people who are just starting a set of Buffalo Nickels or are considering doing so, and do not wish to spend more than $500 for any one coin. It would not be fair to tell beginners or people who are 'new' to collecting Buffalo Nickels that a 1935 Doubled Die Reverse is needed for a set 'by date and mint,' as the traditions of coin collecting indicate that it is not needed.
Classic U.S. Coins for less than $500 each, Part 9: Buffalo Nickels
Classic U.S. Coins for less than $500 each, Part 11: Standing Liberty Quarters
Joe: <<I used the concept that the 37-D 3-leg 18/17 were to be in my set. Those ere the two vareities that were always talked about when I was a kid going to coin club. I could eaccept 16/16 but that is about it. >>
These were not arbitrary references. There are reasons why the 1918/17-D and the 1916/1916 are included. Theser are readily apparent varieties that relate to the numerals of the 'date'!
As for the 1937-D 3 Legs, I discussed the point that this may be an exception to general rules. It is such an unusual variety and has been "talked about" so much, it rose to a special place in the culture of coin collecting. I raised related issues and quoted other people. I was not attempting to order anyone to collect or to not collect the 1937-D 3 Legs variety.