The 1913 Type I Buffalo Nickel Should Have Been a Medal............Not a Coin
BuffaloIronTail
Posts: 7,786 ✭✭✭✭✭
As much as I love the design, the Type I Buffalo Nickel should never have been authorized to be minted as a circulating Five Cent piece.
I believe this, because someone at the Philadelphia Mint should have taken notice at the rough fields of the coin, and should have known it would be difficult to strike properly.
Circulation coins before this issue always had a smooth field to aid in striking the millions of coins needed for circulation. Of course, hindsight is always 20/20 in these matters, and the results support my contention that it was a bad idea.
I will not get into historical details. Most of us know the story. Suffice it to say that the result was devastating on the dies, with micro cracking in the rough fields, premature die wear, and less than acceptable striking qualities.
Feeder mechanisms created problems involving clashes (most notably at the San Francisco Mint). Strangely enough, the Denver Mint seems to have had little problems striking the coin, and a Type I Denver coin is a better choice for a Type Set.
Imagine if you can a beautiful medal made from the Type I Buffalo Nickel. It would have been a thing of beauty to behold.
James Fraser, nothing I can say would be sufficient to praise you.
The "End of the Trail", Indeed.
Pete
Comments
I like the rough fields on early Buffs. It seems to fit nicely with the design. Not much better than a T1 with that "rough' look to it. It just looks natural to me. JMO.
I agree with you. I'm not denigrating the coin. I love it! The point I am trying to make is that the design caused coining problems to produce it.
No more than that.
Pete
Definitely one of our best designs....no doubt about the issues with minting though. Cheers, RickO
The original Buffalo nickel was the work of a first rate artist. It's faults as a circulating coin stem from that fact. Mass coinage and art sometimes just don't mix.
If you base designs entirely on die life and mass production, you get the crap we have circulating now. If the mint began producing the buffalo design on the nickel today, I'm betting the relief would be a lot lower and the Indian's hair would look like spaghetti.
Designs that led to problems with bringing out full design details during the minting process have been rather common. St. Gaudens had a series of protracted disagreements with Mint officials over this very issue. Minting experience during the first couple of years of Standing Liberty quarter production led to the T. 2 design, etc. Peace dollars, flying eagle cents,... Add to the mix the fact that nickel is hard, and problems with accelerated die wear are understandable.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
In the dispute between Charles Barber and Augustus St. Gaudens, too many people accept the St. Gaudens position that Barber was no more than a bureaucratic, no talent blacksmith who had no artistic abilities. Unfortunately, St. Gaudens, his students and the artists who worked for him failed to consider that coins for circulation had to be struck in massive quantities at the low cost. They had no appreciation for what it took to produce dies that could achieve that result. To them the design and artwork were the prime objective.
Although many of Barber’s designs did lack creativity, he did know how to produce dies that did their job well. You might not like his work as well as that of St. Gaudens, but he was able to interoperate St. Gaudens designs into coins, like the Indian $10 gold and the St. Gaudens $20, that were both attractive and able to meet the production standards that were necessary for business strike coinage.
What I’m saying in the end, Fraser’s designs, like those of St. Gaudens had to be adjusted to accommodate the needs of the mint’s day to day operations.