Options
The 3 1/2 leg buffalo nickel saga, UPDATED
buffnut
Posts: 935 ✭✭
Ok, so splitting this out into its own thread to vent a bit. Here's the back story. I wanted to send in a potential proof buffalo nickel for slabbing, and had a few leggers sitting around. I figured I would go ahead and add those on since I was probably going to submit them some time in the future anyway. So here's how the original submission looked:
1. 1915 potential proof
2. 1917D 3 1/2 legger
3. 1917D 3 1/2 legger
4. 1927D 3 1/2 legger
For lines 2-4, I submitted them with the proper 5 digit PCGS submission number, and paid for the variety attribution on all three. Grades came back relatively quick for a regular submission, and the 1915 came back as PF64 (yay!). However the other three coins were slabbed as regular coins with regular submission numbers (no variety attribution). I called PCGS customer service right away, knowing that they hadn't shipped yet and to try and get an explanation. They were nice enough, but here were the notes that were read to me in regards to lines 2-4:
2. Not a 3 1/2 leg variety
3. Not a variety recognized by PCGS
4. Not a 3 1/2 leg variety, too much leg remains
First of all, I am pretty confident in my ability to recognize these varieties. Secondly, line 3 is the very same variety as line 2. Same number, same everything. So "Not a variety recognized by PCGS" didn't make any sense to me. I asked the customer service rep to please see if she could halt the shipment and get them to take a second look. She was more than helpful and did just that for me.
Fast forward to today. Turns out they changed their minds and attributed the 17D leggers, but not the 27D. Grrr. I still think the 27D is legit, even if the leg isn't as brushed away as some of the other leggers. What bothers me is that if I hadn't fought and called and pressed them to look again, I would have three very cheap buffs in three rather expensive holders. With all due respect to our host, they should have gotten this right the first time.
Here are seller pics of the 27D, I'd love to hear some opinions. I realize it may be "borderline", but I still think it is a 3 1/2 leg:
What say the numismatic masses?
1. 1915 potential proof
2. 1917D 3 1/2 legger
3. 1917D 3 1/2 legger
4. 1927D 3 1/2 legger
For lines 2-4, I submitted them with the proper 5 digit PCGS submission number, and paid for the variety attribution on all three. Grades came back relatively quick for a regular submission, and the 1915 came back as PF64 (yay!). However the other three coins were slabbed as regular coins with regular submission numbers (no variety attribution). I called PCGS customer service right away, knowing that they hadn't shipped yet and to try and get an explanation. They were nice enough, but here were the notes that were read to me in regards to lines 2-4:
2. Not a 3 1/2 leg variety
3. Not a variety recognized by PCGS
4. Not a 3 1/2 leg variety, too much leg remains
First of all, I am pretty confident in my ability to recognize these varieties. Secondly, line 3 is the very same variety as line 2. Same number, same everything. So "Not a variety recognized by PCGS" didn't make any sense to me. I asked the customer service rep to please see if she could halt the shipment and get them to take a second look. She was more than helpful and did just that for me.
Fast forward to today. Turns out they changed their minds and attributed the 17D leggers, but not the 27D. Grrr. I still think the 27D is legit, even if the leg isn't as brushed away as some of the other leggers. What bothers me is that if I hadn't fought and called and pressed them to look again, I would have three very cheap buffs in three rather expensive holders. With all due respect to our host, they should have gotten this right the first time.
Here are seller pics of the 27D, I'd love to hear some opinions. I realize it may be "borderline", but I still think it is a 3 1/2 leg:
What say the numismatic masses?
0
Comments
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
As to the attribution snafu, that just happened to me too. I submitted a Morgan VAM with the right variety name and coin cumber, only to have it come back as the much more common, much different, and much lesser value version. So I contacted the head VAM guy and he said to send it to his attention.
This should be a no-brainer.
Thanks.
Here is my example:
Here is a close up of a certified 1927D 3 1/2 legger, PCGS AU53:
and for comparison, a regular 27D:
Notice the majority of the abrasion is not on the front side of the front leg, but rather the back side of the front leg. It isn't as "chunky" and has a peg-leg look to it.
<< <i>I would call the 27-D a 4 leg. >>
sometimes you get the bear
and
sometimes he gets you!
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I guess getting what I was looking for with 3 out of 4 isn't bad, but it would have been nice to get all of the varieties attributed. On the other hand, it would have been none unless I pushed them on it.
<< <i>These things can be very subjective and inconsistencies abound with them. I do believe your '27-D does have a little too much leg to qualify even though it's the correct die. The '17-D and the '27-D vary the most. >>
I guess showing a little too much leg got me in trouble. Damn those sexy ankles!
So I checked my submission page again today, and they did end up attributing the 27D:
Line # Item # Cert # PCGS No. Description Country Grade
1 1 32692585 3992 1915 5C USA PR64
2 1 32692586 38441 1917-D 5C 3 1/2 Leg FS-901 (FS-016.42) USA G04
3 1 32692587 38441 1917-D 5C 3 1/2 Leg FS-901 (FS-016.42) USA G04
4 1 32692588 38456 1927-D 5C 3 1/2 Leg FS-901 (FS-016.65) USA G06
What a pleasant turn of events
Ike Specialist
Finest Toned Ike I've Ever Seen, been looking since 1986
Congrats.
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress
good for you. i was 50/50 on it and would have bought it raw no prob because of the low cost but the true test came with sending it off for attribution.
no half-way about this one. either home run or strike out.
i give you an a+ for forum post presentation.
.
I also had the advantage of examining the coin in hand, which is of course much better than judging from a single pic.
There are also variations in the degree of abrasion within these varieties. I do agree this one is borderline, so it could have gone either way.