Newp 36 Proof Buff

ChrisH821 · June 4, 2022 8:28PM

Just acquired this one. Came in the original mint cello so I believe it is an original survivor.
I'm very happy with it so I thought I would share!

Update:
PCGS PR65

winesteven · June 4, 2022 9:10PM

Chris - Absolutely gorgeous! Enjoy!

Calling @ricko - How about applying your “BW” sticker to this lovely coin?

Steve

Martin · June 4, 2022 9:10PM

@ChrisH821 Very nice. Let’s see the
Picture when it was still on the cello. I know I’d really like to see it.

Thanks in advance
Martin

BuffaloIronTail · June 4, 2022 9:14PM

Remarkably well preserved. The liquid reflective fields are the best I've seen in a long time.

Pete

FullHorn · June 4, 2022 9:14PM

Awesome! Good pictures. I could see that one in a 67 holder with a green sticker.

ChrisH821 · June 4, 2022 9:38PM

@Martin said:
@ChrisH821 Very nice. Let’s see the
Picture when it was still on the cello. I know I’d really like to see it.

Thanks in advance
Martin

Here is one from the seller

I have no plans to put it back in the cello, I will keep it though. Here is a picture of the cello by itself. You can see the impressions that it made.

@winesteven said:
Chris - Absolutely gorgeous! Enjoy!

Calling @ricko - How about applying your “BW” sticker to this lovely coin?

Steve

Thanks I will for sure! My '36 proofs are probably my most frequently viewed coins. It will eventually go to our hosts but it might be a little while since I just sent an order about a week ago.
I would call it more of a steel grey than BW.

alaura22 · June 4, 2022 9:55PM

An 86 year old virgin, oh my, Beautiful

coinbuf · June 4, 2022 9:59PM

That is a very nice addition to your collection, congrats.

Martin · June 4, 2022 10:24PM

Ok that is uber cool. That is a glimpse into mint packaging from the 36 to 42 years.
I wish more was known about the packaging and shipping of those years.

Nice find.

Martin

ifthevamzarockin · June 4, 2022 10:35PM

Beautiful!

Smudge · June 5, 2022 5:19PM

Wow, don’t see that often.

alaura22 · June 5, 2022 5:24PM

@ChrisH821 said:

@Martin said:
@ChrisH821 Very nice. Let’s see the
Picture when it was still on the cello. I know I’d really like to see it.

Thanks in advance
Martin

Here is one from the seller

I have no plans to put it back in the cello, I will keep it though. Here is a picture of the cello by itself. You can see the impressions that it made.

@winesteven said:
Chris - Absolutely gorgeous! Enjoy!

Calling @ricko - How about applying your “BW” sticker to this lovely coin?

Steve

Thanks I will for sure! My '36 proofs are probably my most frequently viewed coins. It will eventually go to our hosts but it might be a little while since I just sent an order about a week ago.
I would call it more of a steel grey than BW.

Chris
Did the seller have the complete set in the original packaging?

ChrisH821 · June 5, 2022 6:17PM

@alaura22 said:
Chris
Did the seller have the complete set in the original packaging?

No, but they did also have the dime. My bid wasn't strong enough to win that one.

Martin · June 5, 2022 7:08PM

@ChrisH821 what did the dime bring?

Thanks
Martin

nwcoast · June 5, 2022 7:50PM

Really a GORGEOUS example!
Congratulations!💕

ChrisH821 · June 5, 2022 7:54PM

@Martin said:
@ChrisH821 what did the dime bring?

Thanks
Martin

$845
https://www.ebay.com/itm/154997221491

Elcontador · June 5, 2022 8:37PM

Thanks, Chris. I've always liked the PF Buffs, Mercs and Walkers.

skier07 · June 6, 2022 7:36AM

That’s a great looking coin and the cellophane is neat. Congrats! How do you think our hosts would grade it?

ChrisH821 · June 6, 2022 8:00AM

@skier07 said:
That’s a great looking coin and the cellophane is neat. Congrats! How do you think our hosts would grade it?

My estimate is PR66, there is a little bit of what I would call "cello friction", for lack of a better term, on the high points from sliding around in the mint packing. If you open the reverse picture in a new tab and blow it up it will be more apparent. It isn't terribly distracting but it's there. Maybe it bumps it down to PR65 but I don't see it possibly going lower than that.
This is why mint cellophane is a terrible long-term storage medium, this coin would easily make 67 if not for that.

HasBeen · June 6, 2022 4:58PM

For what my opinion is worth I grade your coin PR67.

Years ago I bought an original 1940 proof set in the box (as shipped from the mint), along with a few coin (regular strikes) and a note saying this was the purchasers refund due to overpayment. I still have the box, note, and refunds coins.

If I was smart enough I’d post pictures. Alas I’m not. Sorry

HasBeen · June 6, 2022 5:04PM

I realize it’s impossible to accurately grade a coin from a photo.

That being said I’d like to change my first assessment of PR67 to that of a PR67+

Best of luck

dcarr · June 6, 2022 5:08PM

Wow, that is super nice. The small pictures look like it could be as high as PR68.

The apparent "cellophane friction" could be that. Or if it is a deposit of cellophane on the surface, it might come off with a solvent (such as acetone).

Black.Diamond · June 6, 2022 6:34PM

Very Nice Buffalo!

alaura22 · June 6, 2022 7:10PM

@ChrisH821

So what's the plan on getting it graded? If you are close to a major show coing up I would consider doing a walk through, so "WE" don't have to wait months for a grade.
PR-67 is what I think, and a green bean

crazyhounddog · June 6, 2022 7:24PM

Looks like it very well can be a survivor from a mint issue. The surfaces are beautiful as well as the coin.
Congratulations on a great looking addition.

Martin · June 6, 2022 8:09PM

Ok. At the risk of looking bad the More I look at this coin the more I think it is a satin finish. I can’t tell for sure with the photo. If it is satin it is very nice for one

Help me decide. Or tell me what one it is

Thanks
Martin

ChrisH821 · June 6, 2022 8:19PM

@Martin said:
Ok. At the risk of looking bad the More I look at this coin the more I think it is a satin finish. I can’t tell for sure with the photo. If it is satin it is very nice for one

Help me decide. Or tell me what one it is

Thanks
Martin

It is brilliant

Paradisefound · June 6, 2022 8:23PM

Oh what the odd that would be having it in original cello? What a luster too Congrats!

Martin · June 6, 2022 9:06PM

@ChrisH821 thanks that was my first impression. But after looking at it about a million times it started to look satiny and though man it’s hard to tell from the pics. Thanks
Martin

HasBeen · June 7, 2022 6:26AM

Satin finish,or type ones at they are sometimes called, have a raised die line extending horizontally from the “E” in E Pluribus Unum on the reverse.

The same reverse die, I believe, was used to make the 1927 “Specimen” nickels.

ChrisH821 · June 13, 2022 9:11PM

@alaura22 said:

@ChrisH821

So what's the plan on getting it graded? If you are close to a major show coing up I would consider doing a walk through, so "WE" don't have to wait months for a grade.
PR-67 is what I think, and a green bean

Quick update.
I'm going to go ahead and submit under the express tier. Hope to get it shipped out tomorrow.
Might still take a while but will be faster than regular. I'll update again in a month or two.

alaura22 · June 13, 2022 9:13PM

@ChrisH821 said:

@alaura22 said:

@ChrisH821

So what's the plan on getting it graded? If you are close to a major show coing up I would consider doing a walk through, so "WE" don't have to wait months for a grade.
PR-67 is what I think, and a green bean

Quick update.
I'm going to go ahead and submit under the express tier. Hope to get it shipped out tomorrow.
Might still take a while but will be faster than regular. I'll update again in a month or two.

Good luck

FlyingAl · June 13, 2022 9:29PM

A very nice Brilliant proof. I can see 67 easily with what those surfaces look like, what you describe as surface friction I'm seeing as a type of toning. I can't be sure without the coin in hand, and of course the grade is just a guess but it does look fantastic. Good luck!

ChrisH821 · June 13, 2022 10:04PM

@FlyingAl said:
A very nice Brilliant proof. I can see 67 easily with what those surfaces look like, what you describe as surface friction I'm seeing as a type of toning. I can't be sure without the coin in hand, and of course the grade is just a guess but it does look fantastic. Good luck!

Thanks! I'd be very happy if it made 67, 66 is my estimate.

Paradisefound · June 14, 2022 12:37AM

Oh @ChrisH821 ❤️ Must be LOVE at 1st sight! You won the strong hand!!!! Congrats.
Keep us posted on his journey ☺️

TPRC · June 14, 2022 7:50AM

@ChrisH821 said:

@FlyingAl said:
A very nice Brilliant proof. I can see 67 easily with what those surfaces look like, what you describe as surface friction I'm seeing as a type of toning. I can't be sure without the coin in hand, and of course the grade is just a guess but it does look fantastic. Good luck!

Thanks! I'd be very happy if it made 67, 66 is my estimate.

Wow! Congratulations! I'm always very hesitant to purchase from a photo like that with a pic like that. However, Seller does have tons of feedback and offers returns, so good for you. Also, it looks really nice and my first thought was also 66.

Treashunt · June 14, 2022 9:54AM

beautiful

ChrisH821 · July 11, 2022 4:43PM

Soon....

alaura22 · July 11, 2022 4:56PM

Fingers crossed for ya
I'm saying it a 67

NumisOxide · July 11, 2022 5:16PM

Very cool! I vote PR66+

ChrisH821 · July 11, 2022 11:51PM

@ChrisH821 said:

@skier07 said:
That’s a great looking coin and the cellophane is neat. Congrats! How do you think our hosts would grade it?

My estimate is PR66, there is a little bit of what I would call "cello friction", for lack of a better term, on the high points from sliding around in the mint packing. If you open the reverse picture in a new tab and blow it up it will be more apparent. It isn't terribly distracting but it's there. Maybe it bumps it down to PR65 but I don't see it possibly going lower than that.
This is why mint cellophane is a terrible long-term storage medium, this coin would easily make 67 if not for that.

Looks like it is kind of what I thought.
The PCGS grade is PR65. Not terrible, but not outstanding. I'll be interested to see how they photographed it.

Maywood · July 12, 2022 4:24AM

@Martin said: Ok that is uber cool. That is a glimpse into mint packaging from the 36 to 42 years.
I wish more was known about the packaging and shipping of those years.

There's no reason to believe that is anything other than a 1936 Proof coin placed into a post-1950 cello pouch.

MFeld · July 12, 2022 4:36AM

@Maywood said:
@Martin said: Ok that is uber cool. That is a glimpse into mint packaging from the 36 to 42 years.
I wish more was known about the packaging and shipping of those years.

There's no reason to believe that is anything other than a 1936 Proof coin placed into a post-1950 cello pouch.

Is there a good reason to believe it wasn't in a pre-1950 cello pouch?

Rondor · July 12, 2022 6:58AM

That coin looks perfection to me.

Maywood · July 12, 2022 7:37AM

@MFeld said: Is there a good reason to believe it wasn't in a pre-1950 cello pouch?

Packaging from this era is almost non-existent, wasn't yet standardized and from accounts I have gleaned from a few sources seemed to be whatever the Mint had access to when they filled orders. Additionally, large scale commercial use of "cello" or cellophane didn't really take place until the early 1930's in the food industry. In a nutshell, there might be anecdotal evidence such as this but not really anything factual. For those reasons I tend to believe cellophane wasn't used by the Mint until 1950 at which time its manufacture had been perfected and its distribution widened.

jdimmick · July 12, 2022 7:41AM

Thats got ot be one of the cleanest nicest proof buff's I have seen

Maywood · July 12, 2022 8:08AM

@jdimmick said: Thats got ot be one of the cleanest nicest proof buff's I have seen

Further evidence to support non-original packaging. The likelihood of a coin being inside one of these pouches for almost 90 years and having what appears to be no hairlines is almost incalculable.

MFeld · July 12, 2022 8:25AM

@Maywood said:
@MFeld said: Is there a good reason to believe it wasn't in a pre-1950 cello pouch?

Packaging from this era is almost non-existent, wasn't yet standardized and from accounts I have gleaned from a few sources seemed to be whatever the Mint had access to when they filled orders. Additionally, large scale commercial use of "cello" or cellophane didn't really take place until the early 1930's in the food industry. In a nutshell, there might be anecdotal evidence such as this but not really anything factual. For those reasons I tend to believe cellophane wasn't used by the Mint until 1950 at which time its manufacture had been perfected and its distribution widened.

Thank you. I've seen a small number of 1936-1942 Proof sets in cellophane, inside small square boxes, as packaged and shipped by the Mint.

ChrisH821 · July 12, 2022 8:42AM

@Maywood said:
@jdimmick said: Thats got ot be one of the cleanest nicest proof buff's I have seen

Further evidence to support non-original packaging. The likelihood of a coin being inside one of these pouches for almost 90 years and having what appears to be no hairlines is almost incalculable.

These cello pouches do not cause hairlines. However they can cause dulling of the highest points on the coin due to the coin being able to slide around in them. That seems to be the case with this coin and likely the reason it only graded PR65. If you open the pictures in the OP full size you will see what I am talking about. Here is the cheekbone area as an example:

Regardless, mint packaging is a crappy storage medium and in my opinion should not be romanticized like it is. Sure a coin might have been in the same pouch for 80+ years, but it has been able to move and rub against the inner surface of the pouch. I have a 1950 Proof set in OGP that has a half dollar displaying some of the same high point dulling, none of the coins in it have hairlines.

WAYNEAS · July 12, 2022 8:50AM

What a great coin.
I hope it finds some fellow herd members to keep it company.
Wayne

FlyingAl · July 12, 2022 9:07AM

@MFeld said:

@Maywood said:
@Martin said: Ok that is uber cool. That is a glimpse into mint packaging from the 36 to 42 years.
I wish more was known about the packaging and shipping of those years.

There's no reason to believe that is anything other than a 1936 Proof coin placed into a post-1950 cello pouch.

Is there a good reason to believe it wasn't in a pre-1950 cello pouch?

There are images of original proof sets in their boxes from the mint in cellophane. Also, we have several board members that would gladly back up the statement that the proofs from this era were indeed sent in cellophane. There is, however, no evidence to the contrary from people who have seen originally mailed coins.

As to the proof surviving in the cello, if it sits in an attic for forty years, it probably hasn't moved much against the cellophane.

Newp 36 Proof Buff

Comments

Leave a Comment

Categories