Grade this '21-s Buffalo Nickel

BigD5 · April 26, 2005 11:37AM

Known for weak strikes, what do you think?

BigD5 · April 26, 2005 11:39AM

The reverse may make you edit your guess.

LincolnCentMan · April 26, 2005 11:43AM

Ob AU55 Rev VF20CP (crappy strke).... gonna go with XF40 b/c of stirke.

David

ddbird · April 26, 2005 12:17PM

Looks kinda off, dont know why though. A little too porous unless its just the pics...Id agree with XF40

coinkat · April 26, 2005 12:34PM

I'll leave this one to the buff experts. The lustre looks decent and should bring it in the low ef range. I am not sure the coin is original and that may not help.

Crackout · April 26, 2005 1:01PM

I'll guess that the lack of detail is a weak strike, but that it still has wear - AU-50.

mirabela · April 26, 2005 1:01PM

Strictly in terms of wear, AU I guess. The surfaces look awful, though, and the reverse strike is terrible! I wouldn't want it at higher than very weak VF money, although I'm aware that means I wouldn't become its owner, either. That's the kind of coin that, if I owned it, I'd think "if only" every time I saw it -- and that's just the kind of coin I've finally learned not to own at all...

poorguy · April 26, 2005 1:04PM

Definitely circulated, not horrible in terms of strike, bad hit on the indian's hair, XF40-45

NumisOxide · April 26, 2005 1:09PM

XF40, with a weak strike.

dorkkarl · April 26, 2005 8:58PM

it looks corroded & harshly cleaned, so i'd guess vf details net f-12.

K S

Shamika · April 26, 2005 11:54PM

Karl is right. The fields look corroded (pitted) and the coin was later cleaned. I don't recall seeing this date with a poor strike very often so I would give it a VF grade.

Based on wear alone, the coin is AU. But the other problems (weak strike and pitted fields) make this a very undesireable coin in my opinion.

Grade this '21-s Buffalo Nickel

Comments

Leave a Comment