So.... has this coin been played with or not?

Shamika · December 13, 2005 8:51AM

What says you? 1925-S Buffalo nickel

DUIGUY · December 13, 2005 8:56AM

IMHO, looks dull , void of luster. IMHO

MikeInFL · December 13, 2005 9:09AM

Who can tell with Heritage's crappy photos??!?!

RKKay · December 13, 2005 9:47AM

Looks dipped out to me.

Shamika · December 14, 2005 3:50AM

Any other opinions?

BigD5 · December 14, 2005 3:58AM

Played with? Looks acceptable to me. Can't tell for sure from the image, but I'd say it looks ok, especially at that grade level.

Typical mushy strike, although the reverse isn't bad at all, and probably better than typically found. The luster isn't great, but again, the coin only grades ms/63 and I'm not sure what everyone's expectations would be for this date at this grade level.

For an ms/63 it looks ok to me. From the image.

mojorizn · December 14, 2005 4:01AM

I don't see a problem with the coin as a 63.

Mojo

Shamika · December 14, 2005 7:32AM

Thank you guys for the input.

For anyone who doesn't know Buffalo nickels, the 1925-S is arguably the butt ugliest date/mint in the series. Piss poor strikes, dull luster, and unattractive toning is the order of the day. And to make matters worse, this issue is one of the more difficult dates in mint state. If for instance a legitimate MS65 were to come to auction, you'd probably need a $40,000 bid to have a real shot at it.

Anyway, I must admit that I thought the coin looked pretty good initially. The strike is actually superior to most others in this grade, especially on the reverse. The surfaces were relatively clean and the toning was neutral which is actually a good thing

. In fact, I had planned on putting down a serious bid. And then I discovered this earlier auction. If you compare the black carbon spots near the obverse rim at 9:30 and the reverse rim at 4:00 you can see that they are indeed the same coin. The only difference being that the PCGS coin has been "touched up". The cleaning isn't serious (PCGS slabbed it after all

), but it's certainly enough that I ran away.

It's pretty sad that the ANACS coin only brought $1,495 and then six months later the same coin after being cleaned and put into a PCGS holder brings $2,070.

JadeRareCoin · December 14, 2005 7:37AM

It's pretty sad that the ANACS coin only brought $1,495 and then six months later the same coin after being cleaned and put into a PCGS holder brings $2,070.

Wow. That must have really pissed off the coin doctor. The "doctors" expect much more of a margin for their "art work". A $500 bump on a doctored coin must have been taken as an insult by the doctor. BTW, good catch on this coin. It happens all of the time.

BECOKA · December 14, 2005 7:43AM

Wow, good catch. Not a bad transfer from ANACS to PCGS, especially after being cleaned up.

Shamika · December 14, 2005 7:44AM

<< <i>It happens all of the time. >>

I hate hearing this, but I know you're right.

Shamika · December 14, 2005 7:46AM

<< <i>Not a bad transfer from ANACS to PCGS, only 1 grade drop. I wonder if it did not get touhed up if it would have been a direct cross? >>

BECOKA,
Take a second look. It DID cross!

ColonialCoinUnion · December 14, 2005 7:48AM

Impressive effort to track that one down Shamika.

As someone who does exactly the same thing (i.e. trace coins) pretty much every day, it can be disspiriting to see what happens to most coins over time.

As a related aside, I viewed every coin in every Baltimore auction and it was my opinion that at least 80% had been 'improved' somehow, someway, by someone.

I don't know when exactly the demand for original coins will change the market, but my sense is that it needs to happen soon before there are none left.

So.... has this coin been played with or not?

Comments

Leave a Comment