1914 buffalo nickel on eBay described as a gem matte proof ???

BUFFNIXX · July 23, 2017 6:12PM

There is a 1914 buffalo nickel on eBay right now described as "1914 Nickel Gem Matte Proof Pretty Rainbow Toning Less Than 100 This Nice #1112” .....
.....and here is the description of the coin in this auction

Virtually mark-free! This was purchased as a Matte Proof, late die state, from a 1979 Bowers & Ruddy Auction, evident by the extreme lack of bag marks normally found even on MS66/67 examples. During that time, the mint did not discard the dies until the full accounting of required strikes were minted. There are many Proofs that are not fully struck. For evidence, refer to many PCGS and NGC Proof Liberty Nickels, as just one example. You'll find that many of them do not have all the kernels in the corn on the reverse, fully struck up, whereas some "early die strikes" of business strike or ordinary-BU examples will have corn kernels fully struck. The mint was no where near perfect, especially over a hundred years ago.
1914 Nickel Gem Matte Proof Pretty Rainbow Toning Less Than 100 This Nice #1112

I have had a vigorous discussion with the seller of the coin as to this coin’s status as a proof. He is adamant that it is. The above description of the coin was added to the auction based upon our discussions. Am I missing something here. I tried to get him to change his description to “gem brilliant uncirculated” but I cannot convince him it is a business strike. Is there anyone out there who would argue that this is a proof? Also notice on the reverse that the coin has damage on the rim at 5 o’clock so at best this coin would be graded “uncirculated details, reverse rim damage” if sent into PCGS ir NGC. I know that is a far cry from gem proof but, it is what it is.
still a very pretty coin though.

Manorcourtman · July 23, 2017 6:46PM

That is one fugly, abused business strike.

cameonut2011 · July 23, 2017 6:50PM

It doesn't look like a proof to me. It also looks like an ATed monstrosity.

cmerlo1 · July 23, 2017 7:28PM

AT all the way.

golden · July 23, 2017 8:05PM

Ugly.

OldEastside · July 23, 2017 8:45PM

Hehe Pictures are worth a thousand words

Steve

CaptHenway · July 23, 2017 8:55PM

GACK!!!

jtlee321 · July 23, 2017 9:26PM

Wow!! I've got a bunch of Matte Proof's I'll sell him... Let me just place my order with GSC and I'll have them drop shipped.

skier07 · July 23, 2017 10:41PM

And Mr Buffalo has acne

BUFFNIXX · July 24, 2017 1:20AM

I find it hard to believe that this came from a 1979 Bowers & Ruddy Auction, as this was a big reputable auction house at the time. Sometimes though people become mesmerized by coins with attractive/terrible toning (your choice) and tend to overlook other factors/flaws in the coin. In this case, color aside...
1) Proofs do not come with weak strikes in the central details of the obverse like this
2) rims are sharp on proofs, both inner and outer, as not on this coin.
3) proofs do not come with this type of a slick surface, this is indicative of a business strike.
4) there is no such think as a late die state proof. At least none that I have ever seen.
5) I think the owner may well have bought this from the aforementioned auction and may just not be familiar with
proof characteritics. I feel sorry for him as none of the info I gave him seemed to resonate. And we corresponded
over a number of emails to the point where he updated his auction with the information above.

BUFFNIXX · July 24, 2017 1:27AM

I just checked and the seller ended the auction because “of an error in the listing”. Maybe he was finally educated by me and others along the way. Will wait to see if this is listed as a business strike now.

ricko · July 24, 2017 3:52AM

Definitely not a proof..... glad that the auction was pulled....Not a coin I would buy even as a business strike. Cheers, RickO

Treashunt · July 24, 2017 4:34AM

AT, ugly, and not a proof

OldIndianNutKase · July 24, 2017 6:57AM

There is no pretty on that coin and it is definitely not a proof.

OINK

shorecoll · July 24, 2017 7:08AM

If it was bought in 1979 and taken out of the holder, that's a lot of years for someone to have switched it or messed with it or both. I wouldn't buy that under any circumstances.

YQQ · July 24, 2017 7:59AM

maybe a little dipping would improve the appearance?

WoodenJefferson · July 24, 2017 8:14AM

"You'll find that many of them do not have all the kernels in the corn on the reverse, fully struck up, whereas some "early die strikes" of business strike or ordinary-BU examples will have corn kernels fully struck. The mint was no where near perfect, especially over a hundred years ago."

What are these 'kernels' of corn that are being discussed in the description?

Never mind, they were talking about Proof Liberty Nickels as a deflection statement that all proof coins are created equal.

oih82w8 · July 24, 2017 8:29AM

No way that this is a proof.

BuffaloIronTail · July 24, 2017 3:22PM

It never was a proof. The Mint got pretty good at proof coinage by 1914, and 1914 nickels are some of the best made of the proofs.

Non Sequitur..............your facts are uncoordinated.

Pete

roadrunner · July 24, 2017 3:52PM

The original B&R 1914 Matte Proof is long gone.....and this one now in its place. What a turdette.

BUFFNIXX · July 24, 2017 3:57PM

I wonder exactly how this coin sustained the damage which is located at 5 o’clock on the reverse rim??

BUFFNIXX · July 25, 2017 4:43PM

One final comment. I really like the color. Hope someday it is regraded and offered in another auction at a reasonable price. I would be interested.

koynekwest · July 25, 2017 7:20PM

I have seen a very few poorly struck matte proofs but none that bad-this one, slabbed by PCGS is about the worst I've seen. The one you show is much worse-there's no way that's a proof.

BuffaloIronTail · July 26, 2017 6:57AM

What does that coin you posted above grade out at?

Pete

koynekwest · July 26, 2017 11:05AM

I believe it's a PR63.

ColonelJessup · July 26, 2017 4:24PM

@koynekwest said:
I believe it's a PR63.

Verify the cert # and get back to us. :'( :'(

I did this with another post on 1916 PR 1c.
Only the foolish choose to remain ignorant.
Click on CoinFacts or, better, the Heritage Archive. Ray Charles could figure it out after that.

@CaptHenway or @insider2 might give you the two distinctive die markers found on all Type II proofs.
I hope they don't.
One year at Summer Seminar, on a challenge after a deliberately tricky 1915 proof with a die crack across the Buffalo, three YN's in Intermediate Grading figured it out overnight using the HA Archive. One was already in 10th Grade.

Forget the 1915 anomaly. All type II's 1913-1917 can be "decoded".
The reverses of those 1926 beauties just jumped out at us. Incontrovertible

Hints enough?

The pros should skip this opportunity to show off.

BUFFNIXX · July 26, 2017 6:09PM

coloneljessup: you posted the following right above.....

The reverses of those 1926 beauties just jumped out at us. Incontrovertible

I think you mean 1927 instead of 1926??

koynekwest · July 26, 2017 6:20PM

The 1914 MP pictured is from an image in my book. Unfortunately I didn't save a picture of the slab. I will go into Heritage where I THINK it sold and look for it.

koynekwest · July 26, 2017 6:27PM

Here it is-

CaptHenway · July 26, 2017 8:17PM

@ColonelJessup said:

@koynekwest said:
I believe it's a PR63.

Verify the cert # and get back to us. :'( :'(

I did this with another post on 1916 PR 1c.
Only the foolish choose to remain ignorant.
Click on CoinFacts or, better, the Heritage Archive. Ray Charles could figure it out after that.

@CaptHenway or @insider2 might give you the two distinctive die markers found on all Type II proofs.
I hope they don't.
One year at Summer Seminar, on a challenge after a deliberately tricky 1915 proof with a die crack across the Buffalo, three YN's in Intermediate Grading figured it out overnight using the HA Archive. One was already in 10th Grade.

Forget the 1915 anomaly. All type II's 1913-1917 can be "decoded".
The reverses of those 1926 beauties just jumped out at us. Incontrovertible

Hints enough?

The pros should skip this opportunity to show off.

I'll just sit over in the corner and juggle defaced CC dies.

ColonelJessup · July 26, 2017 8:50PM

@BUFFNIXX said:
coloneljessup: you posted the following right above.....

The reverses of those 1926 beauties just jumped out at us. Incontrovertible

I think you mean 1927 instead of 1926??

Yes, 1927. (I wish I could remember what CRS stands for). I was part of the group at that very lovely Harmer-Rooke sale where seven different dealers figured it out independently. And remarkably, nobody else in a roomful of 40+ people did. Cool large lots. Went cheap

ColonelJessup · July 26, 2017 10:27PM

@koynekwest said:
Here it is-

Look at the ANACS coin next to it on the HA Archives page. If the PCGS PR63 is a proof, the diagnostics are not sufficiently visible. Its fabric does win first prize in the race to last-place. Your point is as well-made as the coin isn't. On this particular coin, despite particularly miserable imagery, clearly traceable to the Lady MacBeth Collection.

But the best images here don't illustrate well enough what there is to be seen, as do the 1916 1c images. Unless possibly blown up more.

What the wunderkinder found was this, and if someone has a blown-up image with adequate detail for posting, please do. Also easy to see in-hand with a good 5X.

Both on the reverse.
1) At the top of the back of the "D" in UNITED. Triangular die chip (above the surface) pointing directly backwards
2) On the flat inside portion of the rim, from 7:30 to 8:30. A perfectly formed perfectly straight incuse "scratch" that someone else can explain in the morning.

Identify the template once and it's obvious.

CaptHenway · July 26, 2017 10:43PM

Somehow the hub that was used to sink Type Two Proof reverses received a straight scratch on the raised rim. As it hubbed working Proof dies, the Proof dies had a raised line on the rim of each die. These raised lines left depressed lines on the coins.

The Colonel says it is from approximately 7:30 to 8:30 on the rim. My recollection of it is just a few minutes earlier, clockwise, but I do not have one to measure, and the exact time does not matter anyways. It is there and easily seen with the naked eye on a naked coin.

ColonelJessup · July 26, 2017 10:59PM

Re-envisioning, maybe as early as 6:50. I can handle a little bit of truth. On the other hand, he wears glasses, I don't. And it's two hours earlier in Colorado. Yawn

clarkbar04 · July 26, 2017 11:10PM

I have only ever owned digital watches. This?

koynekwest · July 27, 2017 10:45AM

The slabbed MP 1914 is just about the poorest example of a MP I've seen. I don't think I'd pay any more than MS money for it.

BUFFNIXX · July 28, 2017 3:55AM

Well it has been relisted as NOT a matte proof in eBay with an asking price of $295. Description has been changed to the
following.....
==================================================================================================== virtually mark-free! This was purchased as a Matte Proof, late die state, from a 1979 Bowers & Ruddy Auction, evident by the extreme lack of bag marks normally found even on MS66/67 examples. However, somebody has devoted much of their time over that assessment so we're simply calling it "Gem BU" as the grading services have often been wrong about these, even grading poorly struck examples as "Proof 66" or better. During that time, the mint did not discard the dies until the full accounting of required strikes were minted. There are many Proofs that are not fully struck. For evidence, refer to many PCGS and NGC Proof Liberty Nickels, as just one example. You'll find that many of them do not have all the kernels in the corn on the reverse, fully struck up, whereas some "early die strikes" of business strike or ordinary-BU examples will have corn kernels fully struck. The mint was no where near perfect, especially over a hundred years ago.

1914 Nickel Gem BU Pretty Rainbow Lustrous Toning, Probaby Less Than 100 This Nice #111

BUFFNIXX · July 28, 2017 3:56AM

The only thing holding this coin back now is the damage at 5 o’clock on the reverse. After rereading the description of the coin the seller still seems to think this is a proof though.

Treashunt · July 28, 2017 4:19AM

No way B & R auctioned that as a Matte Proof

BUFFNIXX · July 28, 2017 5:36AM

"somebody has devoted much of their time over that assessment so we're simply calling it "Gem BU" as the grading services have often been wrong about these.........”
The seller was referring to me in the above part of the description. But really in the end I did not succeed in convincing him there was no way this coin was a proof. At least it is correctly described now.....

BUFFNIXX · July 28, 2017 5:38AM

@Treashunt said:
No way B & R auctioned that as a Matte Proof

My thought exactly. How could a major auction house make the error of calling this coin a proof when it really has none of the characteristics of a proof. I think the seller is mesmerized by the color along with the fact that for all we know it may have been, but not very likely, sold as a proof in 1979 by B & R.

BUFFNIXX · July 28, 2017 5:55AM

@koynekwest said:
I have seen a very few poorly struck matte proofs but none that bad-this one, slabbed by PCGS is about the worst I've seen. The one you show is much worse-there's no way that's a proof.

THE FOLLOWING COIN SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED A “MUTT (DOG) POOOF” NOT A MATTE PROOF!
(I wonder if this coin might not be a candidate for “conservation”?)

Got it f rom the Heritage sold items database.

johnny9434 · July 28, 2017 7:08AM

down right fugly. pass, jmo

koynekwest · July 28, 2017 3:44PM

That one is pretty bad too, Tom.

davewesen · July 28, 2017 5:57PM

@koynekwest said:
I believe it's a PR63.

what that coin is lacking in strike, it makes up for with fingerprint

RogerB · July 30, 2017 8:36AM

Just to be clear – if a working hub is damaged, the defect will be transferred to all working dies made from that hub, although there will be slight individual differences caused by variations in die manufacture.

All proof dies of the Buffalo series were made by the same process as circulation dies up to the point of final hardening and tempering. At this step, proof dies were sandblasted prior to final hardening.

Visibility of any hub defect will depend on fidelity of transfer from working die to planchet. With proofs being made on a medal press at high pressure, they are more likely to exhibit details not commonly seen on circulation pieces.

DoubleEagle59 · July 30, 2017 8:56AM

That description is complete BS!!

BS = business strike.

CuKevin · July 30, 2017 9:05AM

@ColonelJessup said:

@BUFFNIXX said:
coloneljessup: you posted the following right above.....

The reverses of those 1926 beauties just jumped out at us. Incontrovertible

I think you mean 1927 instead of 1926??

Yes, 1927. (I wish I could remember what CRS stands for). I was part of the group at that very lovely Harmer-Rooke sale where seven different dealers figured it out independently. And remarkably, nobody else in a roomful of 40+ people did. Cool large lots. Went cheap

I do remember the C is Chromium, but if anyone can remember the rest, please chime in.

ColonelJessup · July 30, 2017 3:12PM

@CuKevin said:

@ColonelJessup said:

@BUFFNIXX said:
coloneljessup: you posted the following right above.....

The reverses of those 1926 beauties just jumped out at us. Incontrovertible

I think you mean 1927 instead of 1926??

Yes, 1927. (I wish I could remember what CRS stands for). I was part of the group at that very lovely Harmer-Rooke sale where seven different dealers figured it out independently. And remarkably, nobody else in a roomful of 40+ people did. Cool large lots. Went cheap

I do remember the C is Chromium, but if anyone can remember the rest, please chime in.

CRS = Can't Remember Sh!t

WorldSavingBlog · July 30, 2017 3:34PM

Who ever has that coin should not open it. That would be the start of the Zombie Apocalypse. Walking DEAD....

BUFFNIXX · August 1, 2017 6:56PM

Coin is not being listed on eBay now. Must be taking a breather.

1914 buffalo nickel on eBay described as a gem matte proof ???

Comments

1914 Nickel Gem BU Pretty Rainbow Lustrous Toning, Probaby Less Than 100 This Nice #111

Leave a Comment

Categories