1938-D Buffalo Nickel...common beyond belief!

291fifth · May 20, 2007 4:53AM

I had a Borders Book Store 30% discount coupon that would have expired today. I used it to buy a copy of the Q. David Bowers book, "A Guide Book of Buffalo and Jefferson Nickels."

I had always heard that the 1938-D Buffalo was common, but the numbers in the book were eye-opening:

Certified population, combined PCGS, NGC & ANACS: MS65 250,000; MS66 36,084; MS67 2,544; MS68 16.

Compare that to the second most common date from the 1930's, the 1937-P: MS65 5,759; MS66 6,102; MS67 534; MS68 7.

I recall a few years back I was looking for a Buffalo Nickel type coin for my nephew's type set. I didn't want a 1938-D. I ended up buying an exceptionally nice (and probably undergraded) 1937-S in a very early NGC fatty MS-65 holder.
It cost $35.

Newcomp103 · May 20, 2007 5:55AM

Nicely toned, PCGS or NGC certified MS67s are not found too often, but usually sell for a premium...I saw one at a show last year that sold for higher than trend!

SilverEagles92 · May 20, 2007 6:02AM

That hole is empty in my Buffalo Nickel folder. Why haven't I gotten one yet?? Thanks for reminding me!

Shamika · May 20, 2007 3:07PM

Yep, speculators went nuts on this date knowing it was about to be replaced with the Jefferson nickel. So much so that BU pieces are nearly more common than circulated pieces.

Myqqy · May 20, 2007 3:44PM

250K certified 65's is CRAZY numbers!!

Type2 · May 20, 2007 4:13PM

<< <i>I had a Borders Book Store 30% discount coupon that would have expired today. I used it to buy a copy of the Q. David Bowers book, "A Guide Book of Buffalo and Jefferson Nickels."

I had always heard that the 1938-D Buffalo was common, but the numbers in the book were eye-opening:

Certified population, combined PCGS, NGC & ANACS: MS65 250,000; MS66 36,084; MS67 2,544; MS68 16.

Compare that to the second most common date from the 1930's, the 1937-P: MS65 5,759; MS66 6,102; MS67 534; MS68 7.

I recall a few years back I was looking for a Buffalo Nickel type coin for my nephew's type set. I didn't want a 1938-D. I ended up buying an exceptionally nice (and probably undergraded) 1937-S in a very early NGC fatty MS-65 holder.
It cost $35. >>

Does it give RPM's like D/D D/S.

Overdate · May 20, 2007 4:38PM

Certified population, combined PCGS, NGC & ANACS: MS65 250,000; MS66 36,084; MS67 2,544; MS68 16.

Compare that to the second most common date from the 1930's, the 1937-P: MS65 5,759; MS66 6,102; MS67 534; MS68 7.

Looks like a typo, maybe 25,000 instead of 250,000. The pop reports show that PCGS and NGC have each graded more 1938-D as 66 than as 65.

Coxe · May 20, 2007 4:52PM

I bought a box of 20 at Teletrade umpteen years back (when they started doing investor lots). All PCGS 66 and really nice looking. Meant to try to identify some candidate 67 upgrades among them (all OGH). They are indeed embarrassingly common but still make ideal type set coins.

robkool · May 20, 2007 4:56PM

I sent one of those 38' d to ANACS. It came back as an OMM 3 in MS 64. Don't know if that's a common grade...

Elcontador · May 20, 2007 5:48PM

People who want to fill a hole in their type set can get a well struck, attractive coin cheaply. When I was a kid, I picked up a golden toned one that would now go MS 65 or 6 for $2.

Three years ago, I picked up a spectacularly toned one in an OGH in MS 66 for bluesheet. It upgraded to a 7. It isn't worth a great deal, but where else can you find a buffalo nickel that is an honest 7 for under $300?

SeaEagleCoins · May 20, 2007 8:48PM

As someone already mentioned...there are probably many more MS 38-D Buffs than circulated ones.

I am putting together an AU set and may have to take an MS 38-D and carry it in my pocket for a few weeks to add it to my set

kranky · May 20, 2007 8:54PM

I know a board member who collects slab varieties... but only 38-D Buffalos. That raises the difficulty level a bit.

tjkillian · May 20, 2007 9:39PM

I think that being so common is a very good thing. The buffalo nickel is a very cool design and popular. By being affordable in uncirculated, more folks are able to enjoy it. Is coin collecting only about rarity? I enjoy the design and that particular year is very well-struck.

keets · May 20, 2007 10:41PM

i remember getting these in change in the mid-1960's, not worn circs but AU/low MS coins that were probably still being released from the vaults. by my way of thinking this date is a poor choice for a collector to use as a Type piece, especially if it's being bought already slabbed. there are just too many raw examples available to pay for the grading.

Shortgapbob · May 21, 2007 12:36AM

As a extremely common piece in uncirculated grades, I think it makes a great coin to peak the interest of collectors beginning the Buffalo series. As a youngster, I bought a nice, uncirculated 1938-D for cheap, and it really peaked my interest in the series. This is a nice date for the YNs out there.

ziggy29 · May 21, 2007 12:46AM

Yep. Even in 66, the '38-D is common as dirt. It was a well-made coin which rarely saw circulation; as the last-year of issue for that series most were put away almost immediately upon release.

Veep · May 21, 2007 1:09AM

I've always felt that the '38-D is to Buffaloes what the '81-S is to Morgans. They're common as dirt, but if you're looking for lustre, strike and overall eye appeal they represent the height of the series.

gyocomgd · May 21, 2007 1:21AM

<< <i> They're common as dirt, but if you're looking for lustre, strike and overall eye appeal they represent the height of the series. >>

They're very nice, but this is going a bit far, I think. Others in the series make far better type coins. They're more expensive, but nicer in every respect. The 1915 is a good example.

Coxe · May 21, 2007 1:29AM

<< <i>

<< <i> They're common as dirt, but if you're looking for lustre, strike and overall eye appeal they represent the height of the series. >>

They're very nice, but this is going a bit far, I think. Others in the series make far better type coins. They're more expensive, but nicer in every respect. The 1915 is a good example. >>

Perhaps, but I don't believe I have seen an unattractive technical gem 1938-D ever, and there are plenty of them to go around too. Many have the most wonderfull champagne toning with tasteful hints of other colors.

GoldenEyeNumismatics · May 21, 2007 2:29AM

they're common, but always in demand

Overdate · May 21, 2007 4:03AM

They're common in uncirculated, but they often bring more than twice the common date price in lower circulated grades.

Probably because of their relatively low mintage compared to other late dates, and the 1938 being struck at only one mint.

1938-D Buffalo Nickel...common beyond belief!

Comments

Leave a Comment