@BuffaloIronTail said:
Here's a date comparison from the OP coin and a genuine 1925 Buff:
Look at the ribbon near the date. It's different.
Counterfiet.
Pete
The hypothetical damage to the date could very easily have damaged the ribbon as well. Still not enough evidence to condemn the coin. Until a duplicate is found it should be considered as probably genuine, damaged.
This is an obvious and reasonable response. But, not all is what it appears at first glance, as discussed below.
The photo of the genuine 1925 coin shows what is a 'relatively parallel and closely spaced set of ribbons' to the right of the date.
On the 1925 with questionable authenticity the 'left ribbon is bowed out further to the left creating a larger hole between the two ribbons'.
A review of the Philadelphia (mint) Buffalo nickels from PCGS coinfacts truviews shows that from 1920 to 1925 these ribbons are all fairly parallel. In contrast, obverse dies dated 1926-onward (and pre-1919) have non-parallel ribbon orientations similar to the 1925 coin in question from the OP. There could of course be a transition 1925 buffalo nickel obverse with non-parallel ribbons as seen on 1926 Philadelphia mint Buffalo nickel obverses, but based on the truview images such has not been identified. Further, I do not claim to be a Buffalo nickel expert, and I will defer to experts in this area of interest to see whether there are ribbon design/orientation differences for the year 1925 which match the OPs piece in question.
Just my 2 cents analysis to further support the fact that the OPs piece is less likely genuine.
@Koinicker said:
The photo of the genuine 1925 coin shows what is a 'relatively parallel and closely spaced set of ribbons' to the right of the date.
On the 1925 with questionable authenticity the 'left ribbon is bowed out further to the left creating a larger hole between the two ribbons'.
A review of the Philadelphia (mint) Buffalo nickels from PCGS coinfacts truviews shows that from 1920 to 1925 these ribbons are all fairly parallel. In contrast, obverse dies dated 1926-onward (and pre-1919) have non-parallel ribbon orientations similar to the 1925 coin in question from the OP. There could of course be a transition 1925 buffalo nickel obverse with non-parallel ribbons as seen on 1926 Philadelphia mint Buffalo nickel obverses, but based on the truview images such has not been identified. Further, I do not claim to be a Buffalo nickel expert, and I will defer to experts in this area of interest to see whether there are ribbon design/orientation differences for the year 1925 which match the OPs piece in question.
Just my 2 cents analysis to further support the fact that the OPs piece is less likely genuine.
Photo array from PCGS CoinFacts to illustrate @Koinicker's observations.
So counterfeiters in 1934 could have made a transfer die from a 1926 or later coin and replaced the last digit with a 5....
Or it could be a real coin where the new hub was actually used for some 1925 coins.
Excellent pictures.
Look at the top of the 2. It descends much more on the 1926-29 coins than on a 1925. If somebody did copy a 1926-29 coin and alter the date on the die, why would they alter the style of the 2?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I agree that there is a possibility that it is counterfeit, but there is insufficient evidence to condemn it as a counterfeit without a duplicate specimen to show that the misshapen date and ribbon were on the die and not the result of damage. I have seen a lot of damaged coins in the last 45 years, and the random results are sometimes amazingly deceptive.
If there were only one Henning nickel known there would not be sufficient evidence to condemn it, even if it were one of the 1944 no mint mark copper-nickel pieces.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@CaptHenway said:
I agree that there is a possibility that it is counterfeit, but there is insufficient evidence to condemn it as a counterfeit without a duplicate specimen to show that the misshapen date and ribbon were on the die and not the result of damage. I have seen a lot of damaged coins in the last 45 years, and the random results are sometimes amazingly deceptive.
If there were only one Henning nickel known there would not be sufficient evidence to condemn it, even if it were one of the 1944 no mint mark copper-nickel pieces.
I see your point. You're right. Let's just say I'm highly suspicious. That straight as an arrow area on the right ribbon closest to the rim also bothers me.
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
You saved me a lot of posting. I actually learned what you posted for the first time today. as I graded a box of Buffalo nickels. The ribbon on the 26 was into the date! I checked the reference books and nothing was said about this yet the images for each date were there for all to see over the years. When I logged back into this discussion to Throw in this new twist I happily found I was too late. Anyway, I thing we all learned something new and important this morning! It shows there is a lot of work needed in this and other coin series.
I came back to post what I had learned and was happy to see it is old news!
PS Now I'm back to my original opinion that the coin is genuine and several hubs were used for the obverse and reverses! Otherwise, as was already posted, the counterfeiter used different coins as a model.
@Insider2 said:
With the new information provided, due to irregularities in the design, I've changed my opinion - the OP's coin is POSSIBLY a contemporary counterfeit!
And just a note about the "workings" of a typical TPGS...
I personally (along with other authenticators I have worked with) have changed my mind back-and-forth (not genuine, genuine, not genuine, genuine) dozens of times in the past due to direct examination of comparison pieces, discussion with other authenticators, additional research, etc. However, once a coin leaves the TPGS, that is the consensus opinion of the company. On many occasions, over the decades at several different TPGS, my opinion was different from that of the company and my fellow authenticators.
PS Therefore, I reserve the right to change my mind again.
Might make an interesting addition on grading labels: "Notations (Grade etc.) herein subject to change".
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
Here is a list of images of the date from 1920-1929. See how the position of the last digit was changed in 1926 and beyond. The first image is of the date on the 1913 "round top" pattern. Imagine how quickly the date would have worn away if this had been the accepted font adopted for a circulating coin. The second image is the adopted date. It was strengthened later in the year on the 1913 var 2 coins. Further changes in the date were made in the 1930s.
@Insider2 said:
With the new information provided, due to irregularities in the design, I've changed my opinion - the OP's coin is POSSIBLY a contemporary counterfeit!
And just a note about the "workings" of a typical TPGS...
I personally (along with other authenticators I have worked with) have changed my mind back-and-forth (not genuine, genuine, not genuine, genuine) dozens of times in the past due to direct examination of comparison pieces, discussion with other authenticators, additional research, etc. However, once a coin leaves the TPGS, that is the consensus opinion of the company. On many occasions, over the decades at several different TPGS, my opinion was different from that of the company and my fellow authenticators.
PS Therefore, I reserve the right to change my mind again.
Might make an interesting addition on grading labels: "Notations (Grade etc.) herein subject to change".
LOL, Guess you missed this:
when a coin leaves the office...
Many times that opinion will change in the future as "new" info reveals a coin is actually a counterfeit, a mistake was made in the "original" grade assigned, or "Gradeflation" takes place.
@koynekwest said:
Here is a list of images of the date from 1920-1929. See how the position of the last digit was changed in 1926 and beyond. The first image is of the date on the 1913 "round top" pattern. Imagine how quickly the date would have worn away if this had been the accepted font adopted for a circulating coin. The second image is the adopted date. It was strengthened later in the year on the 1913 var 2 coins. Further changes in the date were made in the 1930s.
Point of order...did the position of the last digit change, or did the position of the ribbon change?
Perhaps the process of engraving the date into a master die involved engraving the ribbon closest to it as well. We need overlays.
And FWIW, we had a new Chief Engraver during 1925. Perhaps Sinnock thought it looked better with the date overlapping the ribbon.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
You saved me a lot of posting. I actually learned what you posted for the first time today. as I graded a box of Buffalo nickels. The ribbon on the 26 was into the date! I checked the reference books and nothing was said about this yet the images for each date were there for all to see over the years. When I logged back into this discussion to Throw in this new twist I happily found I was too late. Anyway, I thing we all learned something new and important this morning! It shows there is a lot of work needed in this and other coin series.
I came back to post what I had learned and was happy to see it is old news!
PS Now I'm back to my original opinion that the coin is genuine and several hubs were used for the obverse and reverses! Otherwise, as was already posted, the counterfeiter used different coins as a model.
Great thread!!
I too was unaware of the wandering ribbon before I saw this thread. However, checking my library, I see that Ron Pope mentions it on page M-07 of his "Buffalo Nickels The Abraded Die Varieties" with illustrations on page M-06. It is also mentioned (but not illustrated) on page 40 of "The Authoritative Reference on Buffalo Nickels (Second Edition) by John Wexler, Ron Pope and Kevin Flynn.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Tom-The images I posted above are from my book. I think it's the last digit (or maybe the whole date) that's moving. The 1921 is unique-different than any other date in the series-note the serifs in the ones.
I'm with you Capt. I'd been looking at shield nickels forever yet it was not until "Cherrypickers" that I noticed the different revers hubs. This is the same thing. It's a wonderful day!
BTW, the ribbons are different also so the hub must be different. It is not as simple as the date was punched into a different position on a "master."
The mechanical process of making a new dated Master Hub each year has, I believe, changed over the years. At one time the "standard knowledge" that everybody knew was true was that near the end of one year the engraver would take a Working Hub (raised) and tool away the last digit or maybe the last two digits and sink a new partially-dated Master Die. He would then carve or punch the new digit(s) into it and harden it and use it to make a new Master Hub, etc.
I have always had some problem with this idea. If the partially-dated Working Hub from Year A was good enough to sink a partially-dated Master Die in Year B, why not use the same partially-dated Working Hub to sink new partially-dated Master Dies in Year C, Year D, et cetera until spreading became a problem.
Be that as it may, picture yourself tooling the last digit of the date off of a raised Working Hub. You've got the raised ribbon right next to the last digit. Might you accidentally remove part of the ribbon as well, or do it deliberately to give yourself some room to work in. Once the new Master Die is sunk it should not be too much trouble to free hand carve a new ribbon into it when you are adding the new date digit(s).
Sinnock may have used a new technique that minimized or eliminated the effect upon the ribbon each year. I don't know. I am guessing.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
The coin just came to me in the mail today. I have had some real time with the actual coin now, and as many have agreed it is a counterfeit but man what a good one. This would easily circulate along side a real buffalo nickel and most people would not know the difference. When you look at the bison, for example, it just does not look quite right, kind of the difference between two brother who are different in looks by very little. However the dies were prepared the result was an almost undetectable “false piece” in my opinion.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
It seems weird to me that a counterfeiter would take the time to alter the date. Why? Clearly the obverse comes from another year. I looked and looked, and can find no other 1925 with that ribbon arrangement.
The inside of the 9 is not oval. The inside feather has been attenuated. There is severe MDD present on Iron Tail.
I agree with you 100% on the coin. I just can't figure out what counterfeiter would take the time to alter a date.
I'm gonna show the different dates again. Plus a pic of a 67 reverse which shows the back foot on Black Diamond standing on a mound that does not go to the rim.
Man, what a strange coin. Nothing computes.
You have to get someone to look at it.
Best regards,
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
@koynekwest said:
Don't forget about the EPU on the reverse. Everything about it is all wrong.
Here is is, Ron. Including the strange "O" from "OF".
Pete
Yes, as I said this reverse die could have been used with other counterfeit obverses, and if so it should be easy to spot with that mis-shapen O in OF. Find another one and you will prove both of them counterfeit. I just want to see a confirming piece.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
CaptHenway said: Yes, as I said this reverse die could have been used with other counterfeit obverses, and if so it should be easy to spot with that mis-shapen O in OF. Find another one and you will prove both of them counterfeit. I just want to see a confirming piece.
Agreed. So far I've searched too many listings in various places trying to find something. No luck. Surly another 1925 piece like the OPs has to exist.
The same was said about the 1959-D Lincoln Wheatback: No one makes just one. I'm gonna continue to poke around.
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
@koynekwest said:
I wonder who made the 1916-S counterfeit nickels? This is a somewhat common date/Mint for counterfeits. All are missing the designer's initial and the overall appearance of the bison is quite different from the real deal (the second reverse shown is the genuine coin.)
I've cherrypicked about a dozen of these over the years- they're one of my favorite things to look for. There's also a prominent obverse die crack that runs from the rim through the first feather.
I call these 'skinny buffalo' counterfeits because the belly doesn't hang down like it does on the real one. I've been getting $30 - $40 each for these on the BST and elsewhere.
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
I bought this one on eBay earlier this week and it's about as Unc as you will find them. It just arrived in today's mail and I can confirm it still has a little luster. These aren't rare, but they aren't common, and are all around fun to acquire.
Did anyone feel the word Five on the reverse to be somewhat shorter than most Buffalo Nickels. Here is a comparison I borrowed from CoinFacts of a 1924, 1925, and 1926 "Five" compared to the op's coin. They all appear to be a little taller compared to the one, but that may just be me. I have truly enjoyed this discussion, btw.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
Never noticed that the lower crossbar of the E of FIVE was longer than the upper two. The subject coin has it right, for what that is worth.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Well, with the space between words and the curve of the C he had the room there.
Is that style E found on any of Fraser's other works?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@CaptHenway said:
Well, with the space between words and the curve of the C he had the room there.
Is that style E found on any of Fraser's other works?
Fraser seemed to portray his E differently depending on where it was in the body of the work. One thing he always did was to put the middle of the E closer to the top.
His World War I Medal shows different styles.
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
Point of order...did the position of the last digit change, or did the position of the ribbon change?
Perhaps the process of engraving the date into a master die involved engraving the ribbon closest to it as well. We need overlays.
And FWIW, we had a new Chief Engraver during 1925. Perhaps Sinnock thought it looked better with the date overlapping the ribbon.
Cool thread! Perhaps thinking of the process of changing the date would help. If the date is changed by effacing the digits on a working hub, making a new master die, and then fixing the date, the ribbon would be vulnerable and need to be re-engraved, especially if there was overlap between the last digit and the ribbon.
I may have tracked down a duplicate. Cell phone picture seems to show the same curved ribbon touching the 5 and mashed down 9, which if so would eliminate the possibility of that being random damage. Am trying to get the owner to send it to me. Will advise.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@CaptHenway said:
I may have tracked down a duplicate. Cell phone picture seems to show the same curved ribbon touching the 5 and mashed down 9, which if so would eliminate the possibility of that being random damage. Am trying to get the owner to send it to me. Will advise.
TD
Great Tom! Hope you get to see it.
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
@jesbroken said:
Did anyone feel the word Five on the reverse to be somewhat shorter than most Buffalo Nickels. Here is a comparison I borrowed from CoinFacts of a 1924, 1925, and 1926 "Five" compared to the op's coin. They all appear to be a little taller compared to the one, but that may just be me. I have truly enjoyed this discussion, btw.
Jim
Everything this nickel displays screams counterfeit to me, especially the lettering everywhere on that Buff. Jim, you and I look at Buffs for hours and days on end. There’s no question in my mind it’s a counterfeit. Not even a question.
Happy hunting
The bitterness of "Poor Quality" is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
I see a big difference in the width of the "N" in "CENTS". The O/Ps counterfeit is narrow compared to the broad "N" on the others above. This is true for all of the lettering but most noticeable on the "N". Also the "I" in FIVE on the counterfeits tilts slightly left.
Collector and dealer in obsolete currency. Always buying all obsolete bank notes and scrip.
The unique 1922 buffalo nickel above would be worth a million bucks if it were real!!
Rarer than the 1913 liberty head nickel.
What is puzzling about this is why no more have shown up? Usually when a counterfeit is produced it is made in copious quantities but not the case here. Has anyone ever seen another one of these? For example the 1916-s shown in this thread was made in such large quantities that they are listed sometime in eBay at least every month it seems.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
@BUFFNIXX said:
This fake 1916-s is now on eBay. Notice how the gound/exergue on this one does not quite touch the rims.
same flaw in reverse die seen on the 1925 nickel above though not as markedly on this 1916s but it is there.
(Koynequest first mentioned this one above, but this piece is one of the nicest I have ever seen.)
You may remember a number of years ago that David Lawrence bought out PCI coin grading service and ran it for a few
years. I forget what they called that service as it used the PCI holders and did a very good job of grading. After a few years they folded the service, I think it was called Dominion Coin Grading Service. They used to post all of the coins that they graded and one day I looked at their graded coins and they had slabbed one of these 1916-s counterfeit buffs as a real coin!! i sent them an email to point this out ant the coin was removed from their website by the end of the day!!
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Any chance the 1922 is an altered 1928? Looking at the ribbon next to the 2nd 2, is it abnormally thin near where it makes contact with the digit, as if carved away when chasing metal? It is very well done, though, however it was made.
@messydesk said:
Any chance the 1922 is an altered 1928? Looking at the ribbon next to the 2nd 2, is it abnormally thin near where it makes contact with the digit, as if carved away when chasing metal? It is very well done, though, however it was made.
I have looked at the date under high magnification and it does not appear to be an altered date.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
@BUFFNIXX said:
I almost forgot about this one, a really puzzle as it looks real and grades vf-xf. (This is my coin).
Fascinating! I had not seen this piece!
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Comments
This is an obvious and reasonable response. But, not all is what it appears at first glance, as discussed below.
The photo of the genuine 1925 coin shows what is a 'relatively parallel and closely spaced set of ribbons' to the right of the date.
On the 1925 with questionable authenticity the 'left ribbon is bowed out further to the left creating a larger hole between the two ribbons'.
A review of the Philadelphia (mint) Buffalo nickels from PCGS coinfacts truviews shows that from 1920 to 1925 these ribbons are all fairly parallel. In contrast, obverse dies dated 1926-onward (and pre-1919) have non-parallel ribbon orientations similar to the 1925 coin in question from the OP. There could of course be a transition 1925 buffalo nickel obverse with non-parallel ribbons as seen on 1926 Philadelphia mint Buffalo nickel obverses, but based on the truview images such has not been identified. Further, I do not claim to be a Buffalo nickel expert, and I will defer to experts in this area of interest to see whether there are ribbon design/orientation differences for the year 1925 which match the OPs piece in question.
Just my 2 cents analysis to further support the fact that the OPs piece is less likely genuine.
Photo array from PCGS CoinFacts to illustrate @Koinicker's observations.
So counterfeiters in 1934 could have made a transfer die from a 1926 or later coin and replaced the last digit with a 5....
Or it could be a real coin where the new hub was actually used for some 1925 coins.
Excellent pictures.
Look at the top of the 2. It descends much more on the 1926-29 coins than on a 1925. If somebody did copy a 1926-29 coin and alter the date on the die, why would they alter the style of the 2?
@BuffaloIronTail said: "Look at the ribbon near the date. It's different. Counterfiet."
Won me over. Counterfeit.
I agree that there is a possibility that it is counterfeit, but there is insufficient evidence to condemn it as a counterfeit without a duplicate specimen to show that the misshapen date and ribbon were on the die and not the result of damage. I have seen a lot of damaged coins in the last 45 years, and the random results are sometimes amazingly deceptive.
If there were only one Henning nickel known there would not be sufficient evidence to condemn it, even if it were one of the 1944 no mint mark copper-nickel pieces.
BTW, the 1924 nickels had a bit of a curve in the left ribbon as well.
https://image.invaluable.com/housePhotos/Michiana/54/601054/H4275-L110644589.jpg
I see your point. You're right. Let's just say I'm highly suspicious. That straight as an arrow area on the right ribbon closest to the rim also bothers me.
Pete
Thanks @yosclimber
You saved me a lot of posting. I actually learned what you posted for the first time today. as I graded a box of Buffalo nickels. The ribbon on the 26 was into the date! I checked the reference books and nothing was said about this yet the images for each date were there for all to see over the years. When I logged back into this discussion to Throw in this new twist I happily found I was too late. Anyway, I thing we all learned something new and important this morning! It shows there is a lot of work needed in this and other coin series.
I came back to post what I had learned and was happy to see it is old news!
PS Now I'm back to my original opinion that the coin is genuine and several hubs were used for the obverse and reverses! Otherwise, as was already posted, the counterfeiter used different coins as a model.
Great thread!!
Interesting thread! That date is crazy looking!
My YouTube Channel
The entire obverse die was re-done in 1926.
...and it appears several times after that.
Might make an interesting addition on grading labels: "Notations (Grade etc.) herein subject to change".
Here is a list of images of the date from 1920-1929. See how the position of the last digit was changed in 1926 and beyond. The first image is of the date on the 1913 "round top" pattern. Imagine how quickly the date would have worn away if this had been the accepted font adopted for a circulating coin. The second image is the adopted date. It was strengthened later in the year on the 1913 var 2 coins. Further changes in the date were made in the 1930s.
LOL, Guess you missed this:
when a coin leaves the office...
Many times that opinion will change in the future as "new" info reveals a coin is actually a counterfeit, a mistake was made in the "original" grade assigned, or "Gradeflation" takes place.
Point of order...did the position of the last digit change, or did the position of the ribbon change?
Perhaps the process of engraving the date into a master die involved engraving the ribbon closest to it as well. We need overlays.
And FWIW, we had a new Chief Engraver during 1925. Perhaps Sinnock thought it looked better with the date overlapping the ribbon.
I too was unaware of the wandering ribbon before I saw this thread. However, checking my library, I see that Ron Pope mentions it on page M-07 of his "Buffalo Nickels The Abraded Die Varieties" with illustrations on page M-06. It is also mentioned (but not illustrated) on page 40 of "The Authoritative Reference on Buffalo Nickels (Second Edition) by John Wexler, Ron Pope and Kevin Flynn.
TD
Tom-The images I posted above are from my book. I think it's the last digit (or maybe the whole date) that's moving. The 1921 is unique-different than any other date in the series-note the serifs in the ones.
I'm with you Capt. I'd been looking at shield nickels forever yet it was not until "Cherrypickers" that I noticed the different revers hubs. This is the same thing. It's a wonderful day!
BTW, the ribbons are different also so the hub must be different. It is not as simple as the date was punched into a different position on a "master."
The mechanical process of making a new dated Master Hub each year has, I believe, changed over the years. At one time the "standard knowledge" that everybody knew was true was that near the end of one year the engraver would take a Working Hub (raised) and tool away the last digit or maybe the last two digits and sink a new partially-dated Master Die. He would then carve or punch the new digit(s) into it and harden it and use it to make a new Master Hub, etc.
I have always had some problem with this idea. If the partially-dated Working Hub from Year A was good enough to sink a partially-dated Master Die in Year B, why not use the same partially-dated Working Hub to sink new partially-dated Master Dies in Year C, Year D, et cetera until spreading became a problem.
Be that as it may, picture yourself tooling the last digit of the date off of a raised Working Hub. You've got the raised ribbon right next to the last digit. Might you accidentally remove part of the ribbon as well, or do it deliberately to give yourself some room to work in. Once the new Master Die is sunk it should not be too much trouble to free hand carve a new ribbon into it when you are adding the new date digit(s).
Sinnock may have used a new technique that minimized or eliminated the effect upon the ribbon each year. I don't know. I am guessing.
Looks like I will have to liberate from storage my circ. rolls of Buffs. that have been packed away for 40 odd years.
The coin just came to me in the mail today. I have had some real time with the actual coin now, and as many have agreed it is a counterfeit but man what a good one. This would easily circulate along side a real buffalo nickel and most people would not know the difference. When you look at the bison, for example, it just does not look quite right, kind of the difference between two brother who are different in looks by very little. However the dies were prepared the result was an almost undetectable “false piece” in my opinion.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
It seems weird to me that a counterfeiter would take the time to alter the date. Why? Clearly the obverse comes from another year. I looked and looked, and can find no other 1925 with that ribbon arrangement.
The inside of the 9 is not oval. The inside feather has been attenuated. There is severe MDD present on Iron Tail.
I agree with you 100% on the coin. I just can't figure out what counterfeiter would take the time to alter a date.
I'm gonna show the different dates again. Plus a pic of a 67 reverse which shows the back foot on Black Diamond standing on a mound that does not go to the rim.
Man, what a strange coin. Nothing computes.
You have to get someone to look at it.
Best regards,
Pete
Don't forget about the EPU on the reverse. Everything about it is all wrong.
Here is is, Ron. Including the strange "O" from "OF".
Pete
If this coin were real you would have had a major new variety, a “slanted nine” variety!
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Yes, as I said this reverse die could have been used with other counterfeit obverses, and if so it should be easy to spot with that mis-shapen O in OF. Find another one and you will prove both of them counterfeit. I just want to see a confirming piece.
CaptHenway said: Yes, as I said this reverse die could have been used with other counterfeit obverses, and if so it should be easy to spot with that mis-shapen O in OF. Find another one and you will prove both of them counterfeit. I just want to see a confirming piece.
Agreed. So far I've searched too many listings in various places trying to find something. No luck. Surly another 1925 piece like the OPs has to exist.
The same was said about the 1959-D Lincoln Wheatback: No one makes just one. I'm gonna continue to poke around.
Pete
I've cherrypicked about a dozen of these over the years- they're one of my favorite things to look for. There's also a prominent obverse die crack that runs from the rim through the first feather.
I call these 'skinny buffalo' counterfeits because the belly doesn't hang down like it does on the real one. I've been getting $30 - $40 each for these on the BST and elsewhere.
$40 is pretty good, Christian. The best grade I've seen on these is a Fine.
I bought this one on eBay earlier this week and it's about as Unc as you will find them. It just arrived in today's mail and I can confirm it still has a little luster. These aren't rare, but they aren't common, and are all around fun to acquire.
Did anyone feel the word Five on the reverse to be somewhat shorter than most Buffalo Nickels. Here is a comparison I borrowed from CoinFacts of a 1924, 1925, and 1926 "Five" compared to the op's coin. They all appear to be a little taller compared to the one, but that may just be me. I have truly enjoyed this discussion, btw.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
Don't think those are quite to scale.
Never noticed that the lower crossbar of the E of FIVE was longer than the upper two. The subject coin has it right, for what that is worth.
I wonder why Fraser didn't make the "E" in CENTS with a longer lowest crossbar. I never noticed that about the coin, either.
Well, with the space between words and the curve of the C he had the room there.
Is that style E found on any of Fraser's other works?
I still would like to have another one show up. You know what the commercial says: "You can't only eat just one".
Pete
Fraser seemed to portray his E differently depending on where it was in the body of the work. One thing he always did was to put the middle of the E closer to the top.
His World War I Medal shows different styles.
Pete
>
Cool thread! Perhaps thinking of the process of changing the date would help. If the date is changed by effacing the digits on a working hub, making a new master die, and then fixing the date, the ribbon would be vulnerable and need to be re-engraved, especially if there was overlap between the last digit and the ribbon.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I may have tracked down a duplicate. Cell phone picture seems to show the same curved ribbon touching the 5 and mashed down 9, which if so would eliminate the possibility of that being random damage. Am trying to get the owner to send it to me. Will advise.
TD
Great Tom! Hope you get to see it.
Pete
Great read
I book marked this tread for future reference ...... Thank you all for my learning piece 
Same here, I think there's gonna be a quiz later. Peace Roy
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun, MichaelDixon, NickPatton, ProfLiz, Twobitcollector,Jesbroken oih82w8, DCW
Everything this nickel displays screams counterfeit to me, especially the lettering everywhere on that Buff. Jim, you and I look at Buffs for hours and days on end. There’s no question in my mind it’s a counterfeit. Not even a question.
Happy hunting
I see a big difference in the width of the "N" in "CENTS". The O/Ps counterfeit is narrow compared to the broad "N" on the others above. This is true for all of the lettering but most noticeable on the "N". Also the "I" in FIVE on the counterfeits tilts slightly left.
Now all I have to do is remember all this important info. Gotta eat more fish. Peace Roy
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun, MichaelDixon, NickPatton, ProfLiz, Twobitcollector,Jesbroken oih82w8, DCW
I almost forgot about this one, a real puzzle as it looks real and grades vf-xf. (This is my coin).
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
The unique 1922 buffalo nickel above would be worth a million bucks if it were real!!
Rarer than the 1913 liberty head nickel.
What is puzzling about this is why no more have shown up? Usually when a counterfeit is produced it is made in copious quantities but not the case here. Has anyone ever seen another one of these? For example the 1916-s shown in this thread was made in such large quantities that they are listed sometime in eBay at least every month it seems.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
You may remember a number of years ago that David Lawrence bought out PCI coin grading service and ran it for a few
years. I forget what they called that service as it used the PCI holders and did a very good job of grading. After a few years they folded the service, I think it was called Dominion Coin Grading Service. They used to post all of the coins that they graded and one day I looked at their graded coins and they had slabbed one of these 1916-s counterfeit buffs as a real coin!! i sent them an email to point this out ant the coin was removed from their website by the end of the day!!
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Any chance the 1922 is an altered 1928? Looking at the ribbon next to the 2nd 2, is it abnormally thin near where it makes contact with the digit, as if carved away when chasing metal? It is very well done, though, however it was made.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I have looked at the date under high magnification and it does not appear to be an altered date.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Fascinating! I had not seen this piece!