Trade off of technical attributes: what do you think of this 1935S Buffalo
ad4400
Posts: 2,202 ✭✭✭✭✭
Sellers image certainly makes it look darker, perhaps a bit lackluster. On the other hand, it looks very nice with originality and subtle color. What really sets it apart in my mind is the relatively awesome strike (for the issue) good die state, and lack of meaningful hits.
Where do you fall in the spectrum of technical attributes? I will take pieces that look like this all day long. 
0
Comments
Technically it is an AU-58. Look for the change of color easily seen on the high parts of the reverse. IMO (usually incorrect - LOL):
Conservative "commercial grade" = 62
Realistic TPGS "commercial grade" = 64
AU
I think that the piece has a light rub which makes it an AU-58. The color is okay, but the luster looks to be a bit dull. Overall I'd say original surfaces, okay for the grade, but not exciting.
It might be AU, but what appears to be rub on the Buffalo's rump may just be toning discoloration similar to what is visible across all of the coin's high spots. Such toning is not at all uncommon with MS pieces. It's either 58 or 65.
Put me in the "toning" camp, and also may have to do simply with the weird 12 noon lighting angle.
@Shamika said: "It might be AU, but what appears to be rub on the Buffalo's rump may just be toning discoloration similar to what is visible across all of the coin's high spots. Such toning is not at all uncommon with MS pieces.
It's either 58 or 65."
Very well said. Either AU-58 or MS-65, and that's the rub!
It probably market graded somewhere between 58 and 65 because of that very "rub".
I agree and our opinion is stated in post #2. Except, no way is it a '65 due to strike weakness, dull luster, and rub.
Its not rub. it is a different color in the toning. The high points are the closest to whatever storage medium held the coin so it stands to reason they would tone different, or darker.
@clarkbar04 posted: "Its not rub. it is a different color in the toning. The high points are the closest to whatever storage medium held the coin so it stands to reason they would tone different, or darker."
That's why grading is subjective. You and I will just disagree but I won't give you one for your honest opinion.
Let's call it "cabinet friction" or just a slight weakness of strike and keep all the liberal "commercial" graders happy.
However, I'll suggest you learn the difference in color between toning, original surfaces, and loss of luster due to "whatever" the reason on coins made of nickel alloy.
Here is something that I learned to refute your opinion:
@clarkbar04 said: "The high points are the closest to whatever storage medium held the coin so it stands to reason they would tone different, or darker.
In a grading class you would be asked to explain why the high points on that nickel are a different color (which you have - contact) and why they are NOT DARKER. The correct answer should be the high points like on the Bison's rump are LIGHTER due to friction wear. Next, the discussion would turn to assigning a "commercial" grade to a coin that is "technically" graded AU-58. Coin grading is personal. A TPGS must be realistic - they cannot call every common coin with a little friction AU. Only a conservative collector as I am can. I note that others in the thread with more experience than I agree. So there is no correct answer for everyone.
Wow, I can see at least three to four different grades on that one coin depending on who examines it and their personal grading standards!
That's why this is a very important coin and we're very lucky the OP posted it for discussion.
Sure, but knowing Alain a fair bit, I don't think he is posting it because he thinks it is an AU coin in an MS holder, simply because he felt the coin in the OP has a lot of bang for the assigned grade.
I can appreciate a difference of opinion, and that is after all what make it a "discussion" board. I remain confident it has to do with the lighting angle and the variegated toning. But, we all interpret photos differently.
I'm in the dark. I should like to know the TPGS and the grade assigned. Apparently it was graded MS. MS-64 was my guess at a TPGS "commercial" grade due to the friction and dull luster. I guess I can even see a stretch to 65.
My thought on the original post is the trade offs we make between the technical aspects of grade, in this case luster vs strike, clean surfaces, eye appeal (I'm a gold and purple tone junky) and early die state (although I know this isn't a true technical criteria). Those that have ever hunted for a 35-S know they can come flat as a pancake even at the 65 level, although those tend to be real blazers. For some reason they also tend to have horrible, deep, dings even at the higher levels. For me, for this piece, it was a very easy trade off to get 65/66 strike on a piece I feel is rather eye appealing without spending 65/66 money.
The coin is housed in an OGH as a 63. Not sure when market grade came into vogue, but having been at this for a while, I'll bet it is a solid MS. I think the 'rub' is that luster is lacking for a 65, and the spread between 63 and 64 is essentially nonexistent, so there is no upside removing it from the old holder.
Buffalo Nickel Digital Album
Toned Buffalo Date SetDigital Album
The coin exhibits evidence of being reworked after a heavy die clash. The flea bitten look on the Indians neck is evidence of the clash. So is the area around E PLURIBUS UNUM, and the weak looking front neck close to the chin.
Of course this does not affect technical grade, but should be noted as part of the coins examination.
The strike is typical, but better for the date and mint. 35-S has problems but not as bad as 35-D The coin has clean surfaces and that provides eye appeal, even without toning or blazing luster.
I would have graded the coin a 64
Pete
I would prefer that all grading was done on technical attributes - strike and condition....Cheers, RickO
Circulated coins can look nice, as does this one.
@ricko said: "I would prefer that all grading was done on technical attributes - strike and condition."
Me too. While technical grading is very strict (the OP's coin is always an AU-58 if it stays in that condition) and more precise than commercial grading (the OP's coin can be graded by knowledgeable numismatists AU-58, MS-62, MS-63, and MS-64 and each grade can be defended) which can change over time and at each submission, it was tried at the first TPGS, butchered by the second AND WAS NOT ACCEPTIBLE TO THE DEALERS in the market place.
How do you convince a collector to pay MS-65-66 money for a blast white, original frosty, mark-free, gem Barber 50c with a very tiny bit of color change due to luster loss (LIKE THE OP's COIN) if it has an AU-58 label. That's why technical grading did not work. AFAIK, it is only taught in some grading classes today.
If ALL grading was technical, and not inflated by 'eye appeal' (what ever that means), then there would be no 'convincing' collectors of price....I do not care what someone may pay for a 'pretty' coin...that is a personal decision.... I do care when a technical grade 65 gets a 67 due to 'eye appeal'...a subjective and totally non quantifiable property. I will not pay for it...even if it is a coin I want. Cheers, RickO
@BuffaloIronTail said: "The coin exhibits evidence of being reworked after a heavy die clash. The flea bitten look on the Indians neck is evidence of the clash. So is the area around E PLURIBUS UNUM, and the weak looking front neck close to the chin."
While I agree about the EPU and under the chin, IMO, the flea-bitten neck is due to worn dies.
The "flea bitten neck" is due to a heavy clash transferring the hide of the Buffalo to the neck area.
Pete
@BuffaloIronTail said: "The "flea bitten neck" is due to a heavy clash transferring the hide of the Buffalo to the neck area."
Perhaps someone will do an overlay for you and we can all try to figure out how vertical fur on the Bison becomes transferred as a horizontal flow of metal on the Indian's neck!
BTW, as a Buffalo nickel collector, you know that a similar characteristic (not a clash) is one of the major diagnostics of 1918/17-D nickels.
Insider2: Here is an overlay of the obverse and reverse Buffalo Nickel. If you would note the back neck area and you can see the hide of the Buff clearly hovering over the neck.
As far as 1918/7-D, I haven't heard of that being a diagnostic, but of course, if you have, please enlighten me.
Knowledge is power.
Pete
P.S. don't NEG me for this.
I agree Pete - Knowledge IS power. MY misplaced knowledge is VERY EMBARASSING.
First, I removed my disagree as you are correct. The worn dies on the neck is one of the diagnostics fro the 3-leg. I got caught up with my opinion of the misinformation about a worn die/die clash and wished to rub-it-in. As a result I have poop all over my face and grovel for your forgiveness.
BTW, I really like the overlay! I'll just continue to disagree with you 100%: Worn die and not a polished out die clash.
Easy mistake. Now I realize why you said it. No problem. Keep on keeping me on my toes.
Pete
And you , me!
I like the way you two argue......bringing up facts rather than name calling. Also this way I can learn about a series I like, but know nothing about.
So keep it up.
@DIMEMAN said: "I like the way you two argue......bringing up facts rather than name calling. Also this way I can learn about a series I like, but know nothing about. So keep it up."
I like to argue about coins but I tried to "hit" the Buff man below the belt and he "took-me-out" on the diagnostic I mentioned.
Forgot to mention ....... I do like the 35-S.