For all buffalo nickel collectors, Try grading this 1936 buffalo nickel!.
BUFFNIXX
Posts: 2,727 ✭✭✭✭✭
Heres is an interesting buffalo nickel I got from FleaBay (eBay). Try grading this one.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
0
Comments
AU50-53
AU50
weird coin. MS60?
I agree; surfaces look "dead" to me.
May just be the picture.
Are you thinking it is an impaired Satin Proof?
45 details
Everything is all right!
UNC details
Satin Proof - Proof 64
yes I think so, looks for all the world like a satin finish proof
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I think you are right, thats what I think. but i graded it a pr-62 or 63 maybe.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
this was sold as a business strike.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Looks 60-62 to me.... interesting finish... let us know more when you get it in hand...Cheers, RickO
I did get in in the mail couple of days ago. photos are spot on showing the way the coin really is. Cost me $22.
I think I may send it to ANACS.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Who flees from fleas ?
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
@BUFFNIXX.... Thanks, did not realize that..... Nice price too.... Cheers, RickO
I know you know the series better than I, but I have to disagree with the satin proof assessment. The surfaces don't look right to me, but I'm just going by photos. http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/CoinImages.aspx?s=3994 Compare it to even the PR61 coin in there(which BTW I think looks amazing, must have some hairlines not visible).
Collector, occasional seller
UNC Details
Hey Chris............I ain't good at this either, and the reason I called it Satin was because I remembered what I read about 1936 Buffalo Satin Proofs having a "milky" look to them.
I hate grading from pictures.
Pete
This is really an unusual 1936 nickel, lets say for starters that it sure looks like a satin finish, but lets let a grading service make another call now. I am not sure what to call it. Maybe it is a prototype of the satin finish proof or?
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Any update here?
Collector, occasional seller
It doesn't appear to be a proof planchet to me...sure, the coin has a slightly different look, but nothing else about the coin (rims, design elements, etc.) look like proof. My 5 cents on the topic
pcgs called it ms64 but i still think it is a special striking. not surprising to me though as pcgs does not go out on a limb
for something like this, why should they?
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Dip it to see if there is any reflectivity underneath.
Looking back, the coin looks to have less than a full strike on the hair above the braid ribbon. This weighs against it being a proof. Proof coinage was struck using high pressure. I also think the alleged 1927 specimen nickels had sharper strikes.
I think I am going to bust the 1936 “ms64” nickel out of it pcgs encapsulation, put it in a coin world coin holder which is the same size as a pcgs holder and label it " Matte proof SP64 prototype striking” This might have been something that the mint came up with while they were gearing up for resumption of proof coinage.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Well today I just looked at this coin for the first time since it came back from pcgs AND THEY SWITCHED THE COIN WITH ANOTHER ONE!! This other coin that is reposing in an ms64 holder looks to me like a satin finish proof but is not the one I sent them pictured above. The rims are square and brilliant too, as you can see the rims with this new type of holder.
I think what may have happened is that the got hold of a satin finish proof to compare my coin with, then graded my coin ms64 and then got the coins switched before putting their coin back into their reference set. Anyone ever have a problem like this with pcgs. I am really at a loss as to what to do right now. One thought came to my mind is that someone did this on purpose!! What do you think?? What would you do??
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
You can't make a statement like that and not show us what you are talking about. A coin mix-up would be a very serious issue for PCGS.
Collector, occasional seller
One thought came to my mind is that someone did this on purpose!! What do you think?? What would you do??
Someone on the inside doing you a big accidental favor, it sounds like....contact them with the photos and info you shared with us, and I'm sure they will make it right.....and I'm sure they want their reference coin back.
How > @ChrisH821 said:
A VERY serious issue to say the least. Yes pics would be great.
I TOOK THE 36 NICKEL OVER TO COINQUEST'S HOUSE (RON POPE) AND HE POINTED OUT TO ME THAT IT WAS THE SAME COIN BUT IT HAD BEEN DIPPED BY PCGS!! IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE IT DID WENT IT LEFT MY HANDS. I HAD ERRONOUSLY ASSUMED IT WAS A DIFFERENT COIN BUT IT IT NOT. WAS ABLE TO MATCH MARKERS (SMALL SPOTS) TO PROVE IT WAS THE SAME COIN. WHY WOULD THEY DIP MY COIN?? I WILL POST PICTURES OF WHAT THE COIN LOOKS LIKE NOW. ALL OF THE ORIGINAL COLOR IS GONE.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
MY COIN WAS DIPPED BY PCGS.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
No extra charge for the conservation?
did you get the collector's club 'shield' special? what is the cert number?
Any pics yet?
This.
I saw the coin yesterday. It has the satin surfaces, absolutely no sign of clashing, and the edges are mirrorlike but the strike is deficient (88% of the satin proofs fall just short of full strike status.) I'm sure that proof dies were used to strike circulation coins which might explain the surfaces but that wouldn't explain the edge. The coin is an enigma for sure.
I meant to say 88% of the issue DOES show a full strike. 12% do not but those are very close.