Which 1913 Type 2 Buffalo do you prefer, and why?

gyocomgd · September 25, 2006 1:24AM

Pretty disparate looks. A strike vs. toning question I think.

richardshipp · September 25, 2006 1:26AM

I like the first one better. It appears to have a better strike, although both coins look great.

clevegreg · September 25, 2006 1:55AM

I like the second Buff better, but both have nice eye appeal.

Since the author of this thread enjoys Golf a little bit, I shot a personal best 3 under 69 at a local course this Saturday. With my handicap ( 8.7/ 9.1 with the slope at the course I was playing) I netted out at 60. Interestingly, it was one of the easiest rounds I ever played.

I guess with my message count just over 2000, and my recent success on the course, maybe I should have a give away.

Greg

Leiana · September 25, 2006 2:10AM

I like them both very much, especially for type two buffaloes! The second one appears more lustrous from the images.

-Amanda

gyocomgd · September 25, 2006 2:14AM

<< I like the second Buff better, but both have nice eye appeal.

Since the author of this thread enjoys Golf a little bit, I shot a personal best 3 under 69 at a local course this Saturday. With my handicap ( 8.7/ 9.1 with the slope at the course I was playing) I netted out at 60. Interestingly, it was one of the easiest rounds I ever played.

I guess with my message count just over 2000, and my recent success on the course, maybe I should have a give away.

Greg >>

A giveaway indeed--how about giving me some of that talent? I haven't shot 69 in five years.

guitarwes · September 25, 2006 2:15AM

#2, better "eye appeal" than #1....I bet it is beauitful in hand. would mine to own either, but #2 is my pick. selling??

numisma · September 25, 2006 2:17AM

Hard to say from the images, but strictly judging from the pix, I like the first one better. It seems to have an original "skin", whereas the second has the appearance (from the pic) of a old, light cleaning. The colors support the case for an old cleaning on #2, although that type of color is possible to acquire without a cleaning.

SFDukie · September 25, 2006 2:19AM

They're both pretty. I prefer number 1-like the definition.
Don

Leiana · September 25, 2006 2:23AM

Numisma, could you please explain further? I'm trying to learn to recognise coins that have been lightly cleaned.

All I see on the second coin is some areas where the metal wasn't pushed up entirely in the dies.

Thanks!

-Amanda

numisma · September 25, 2006 2:33AM

<< Numisma, could you please explain further? I'm trying to learn to recognise coins that have been lightly cleaned.

All I see on the second coin is some areas where the metal wasn't pushed up entirely in the dies.

Thanks!

-Amanda >>

Although I did disclaim my post heavily regarding grading from an image, I will try to answer your question. The 2nd coin just looks like others that I have handled in person that I knew were cleaned to some degree. There are no obvious signs of a cleaning (i.e. hairlines), although the glossy appearance of the high points, together with the presence of blue/purple color on the same areas, would make me think twice about buying is "as-is". Sometimes a light wipe with a gentle detergent could create colors of that sort. A cleaning so light that it would not even qualify as a cleaning, although it will have certain look. If I saw the coin at a show, I could make a better assessment. So in summary, my opinion is based on the simple fact of having handled many coins. I could be wrong!

numisma · September 25, 2006 2:34AM

BTW, I like #1 a lot. Nice and crusty.

Tonedbuff · September 25, 2006 2:39AM

No surprises here... I like #2. More luster and a tint of blue. This particular blue, in light shades, is to me, one of the nicest tones. A fairly common tone for nickel. Over time, these often tone to a total 'gunmetal blue'. I do like the split tail and overall strike of #1.
Both nice 64's IMO.
Keep em both, why worry about which is better!

jmj3esq · September 25, 2006 2:43AM

The 2nd for sure. I love the color.

dorkkarl · September 25, 2006 2:45AM

both would be poor choices as a type coin. you can find much better then either of those! these are common coins, hold out for a better 1

K S

MS70Dreams · September 25, 2006 2:46AM

I love both, although from the pictures I prefer #2.

Either would look great in my Dansco!

Is the loser up for sale?

Mike

Steve27 · September 25, 2006 2:57AM

The second appears to have luster missing in the first coin.

Longacre · September 25, 2006 3:03AM

I like the color on #2 better.

gyocomgd · September 25, 2006 5:43AM

<< both would be poor choices as a type coin. you can find much better then either of those! these are common coins, hold out for a better 1

K S >>

OK. But they aren't type coins.

dorkkarl · September 25, 2006 6:18AM

are you matching to a set then? in that case, we'd have to know how the other coins look!

K S

lkenefic · September 25, 2006 6:34AM

Hmmmmm...I like the luster and strike of the second coin...L

Tonedbuff · September 25, 2006 6:39AM

I've had a change of heart...
the second one is a crummy AT'd POS that is likely AU50...

But it just so happens I collect those... I'll give you twenty bucks 'cause I'm feeling generous today

gyocomgd · September 25, 2006 6:48AM

<< are you matching to a set then? in that case, we'd have to know how the other coins look!

K S >>

I'd have to say no, you really don't have to know how the other coins look.

gyocomgd · September 25, 2006 6:51AM

<< I've had a change of heart...
the second one is a crummy AT'd POS that is likely AU50...

But it just so happens I collect those... I'll give you twenty bucks 'cause I'm feeling generous today

>>

As you're one of my favorite people, I'll consider that! Briefly. With prejudice to my side.

Shamika · September 25, 2006 6:52AM

I like the first one. When I see toning on the high points of a coin that is different than that in the fields, I frown.

Also, as Dennis said, the first one is nice and crusty.

Shamika · September 25, 2006 6:53AM

One other thing, the first one has an better than average strike. Type 2's often seem to have mediocre strikes.

Leiana · September 25, 2006 6:53AM

<< One other thing, the first one has an better than average strike. Type 2's often seem to have mediocre strikes. >>

-Amanda

Tonedbuff · September 25, 2006 6:54AM

Sorry,
I had an ebay moment there...
Forgot we were on the 'civilized' boards here, where we take care of our fellow brethren and never utter a falsehood...

I'll retract my retraction.
Nice colorful 64, and I like it!

Tonedbuff · September 25, 2006 6:56AM

<< I like the first one. When I see toning on the high points of a coin that is different than that in the fields, I frown.

Also, as Dennis said, the first one is nice and crusty. >>

Why is that? I've often seen this in album (or envelope) toned coins, where the toning tends to spread outward from the greatest point of contact with the album (especially on the reverse, since that side was paper in on older albums)...
Frankly, it seems to me to be a common toning pattern.

You seeing (or knowing) something I am not???

obversity · September 25, 2006 6:57AM

I'd go with #2. While #1 has marginally better strike the other has better eye appeal (for me anyway).

gyocomgd · September 25, 2006 6:58AM

<< Sorry,
I had an ebay moment there...
Forgot we were on the 'civilized' boards here, where we take care of our fellow brethren and never utter a falsehood...

I'll retract my retraction.
Nice colorful 64, and I like it! >>

Is okay. You can have this one for only $15. Howzat?

Tonedbuff · September 25, 2006 7:04AM

<< 

<< Sorry,
I had an ebay moment there...
Forgot we were on the 'civilized' boards here, where we take care of our fellow brethren and never utter a falsehood...

I'll retract my retraction.
Nice colorful 64, and I like it! >>

Is okay. You can have this one for only $15. Howzat?

>>

DONE!

It's like the chat version of ebay!

mozeppa · September 25, 2006 11:42AM

what chit youse guys....thats agin the rooles!

majorbigtime · September 25, 2006 11:48AM

<< I like the second Buff better, but both have nice eye appeal.

Greg >>

Mee too. I don't like the spot under the chin on the 1st coin.

netrubicon · September 25, 2006 11:52AM

The second coins strike looks much cleaner and sharper than the first coin. The color of the second coin if not At looks like a better coin.

gyocomgd · September 25, 2006 12:10PM

<< The second coins strike looks much cleaner and sharper than the first coin. The color of the second coin if not At looks like a better coin. >>

The suspicion and clamor about AT is getting out of control, I swear.

yellowjacket · September 25, 2006 12:11PM

Without seeing the coins in hand, I vote for #2 all day long. If it is original, it has the best chance at being MS. The first is a nice AU piece.

Coinhog · September 25, 2006 10:32PM

number two by far

dorkkarl · September 25, 2006 10:40PM

<< < are you matching to a set then? in that case, we'd have to know how the other coins look!

K S >>

I'd have to say no, you really don't have to know how the other coins look. >>

?

w/out knowing the collecting objective, dunno how anyone could decide which coin to prefer

K S

numisma · September 25, 2006 11:59PM

Hey gyocomgd, which one do YOU prefer? They are both neat coins, I just happen to prefer #1. Thanks for posting this thread.

gyocomgd · September 26, 2006 12:31AM

<< Hey gyocomgd, which one do YOU prefer? They are both neat coins, I just happen to prefer #1. Thanks for posting this thread. >>

I prefer the first coin. I'm biased toward strike over luster, and except for the detail high in the Indian's hair, I feel the first coin is more detailed. Per the second coin, I appreciate Shamika's note about being alarmed when there's toning on the high points but not in the fields--light cleaning here is a real possibility, though there are no hairlines.

Which 1913 Type 2 Buffalo do you prefer, and why?

Comments

Leave a Comment