Overgraded 1913 Buffalo?

Looking at Buffalo nickels on eBay. Came across this one:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1913-Type-1-Buf...05?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item5640d4d929

Graded by PCGS as MS66. I was really surprised because there seems to be quite a lack of detail on the date and the back of the neck.

Also on the reverse there seems to be a great lack of detail on the side of the bison.

I compared this to the example PCGS gives on it's website of an MS66 of this coin. It seems to confirm my impressions.

I can't believe this coin got a grade of 66. With the wear on the date I don't know how this could even be considered mint state.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Looks like an MS-64+, and maybe a 65. Little over-graded in my opinion. But some Buffs tend to have weak strikes but still get high grades. But there's some things I disagree with on this coin. The 1 in 19 is very faint. On about all coins graded MS-66, including Buffs and SLQ's, the date is very clear and crisp. So I'll agree that this coin might be over-graded. After looking at PCGS Photograde, the date and details on the MS-66 picture has alot better strike and more luster compared to the one shown in the url.

 

1913 T-1's are almost always well struck. When they're not, the incompleteness is usually only seen on the tip of the uppermost feather on the obverse and the corresponding reverse area in front of the Bison's head. An MS66 should look more like a matte proof than an AU, like this one resembles. Of course it could be the photo or the lighting, but the image isn't doing the auction any favors.

 

Two things going on here, I think....

First, the photos appear to me to be a be a scan. Scans are notorious for not showing luster. If photos are impossible to grade from (and I believe they are), then scans are more impossible.

Second, PCGS doesn't grade by "details" they grade by "luster & hits", then they net grade by a lack of details (i.e. weak strike). This type in particular suffers from weak strike, so don't expect it to be reflected in the 66 grade.

Bottom line: I see nothing to suggest this coin is anything but properly graded. Of course, I'd prefer to see the coin in-hand.

All of the above IMO, of course....Mike

 

Pretty Nice Buff!
Steve

 

+1

I agree completely with the grade on this coin.

 

I agree that I shouldn't try to grade buffalo nickels. I don't have a clue.

 

Here's a shot of my NGC MS66 1913 Type I, which I consider to be a bit low-end for the grade. Without seeing the luster pattern it's hard to say, but the pattern of weakness on the offered coin would be very unusual if caused by wear. A weak strike or even a partially filled die seems more likely.

 

According to Ron Pope, who either wrote or co-wrote "The Authoritative Reference on Buffalo Nickels", "Buffalo Nickels: The Abraded Die Varieties" and "The Complete Guide to Buffalo Nickels" to name a few, did a strike study on over 150,000 buffalo nickels. In this study, almost 15,000 were 1913 Type 1, second only to 16,000 1938-D's. He divided strikes into 4 categories, Weak Strike, Typical Strike, Good Strike and Full Strike. The resulting numbers for the 1913 T-1 were that .3% (38) of these were WS, 9% (1261) were TS, 69% (10,015) were GS and 23% (3305) were FS. The 1913 T-1 ranks the 2nd best struck of the whole series behind the 1921.

Not to say this particular coin isn't one of the .3%.

 

So, are weak strikes ever valued more highly as a sort of perverse "condition rarity"?

 

Speaking only for myself, I wouldn't pay more for one. But....according to Mr. Pope's study, they do seem to be a rare bird. :smile It would be a heck of a coin to have as part of a 1913 T-1 grading set.

 

So what you're saying is the typical strike for a 1913-T1 Buffalo is a Good Strike and not a typical strike?

 

I would be more than happy to email you the 39 PDF files that Mr. Pope sent me on his study. Then you could make your own conclusions.

Here is a date by date analysis

 

Thanks for sharing that info (along with the graph a few posts down)!

That said, I think that my definition of "weak strike" and Mr. Pope's are slightly different. When I say weak, I mean anything but full. To use Mr. Pope's parlance and numbers, I would consider this coin to be in the "good", "typical" or "weak" strike category, and clearly not in the "full" one. Thus I would put this coin in the 77% of not fully struck coins.

More to the point that I was trying to make in the post you originally quoted -- I see nothing wrong with a coin in 66 with the strike weakness exhibited by the coin posted by the OP. Particularly considering that (according to Pope) that more than 3/4 (77%) of the coins show some type of weakness (i.e. less than "full").

Do you disagree?

 

p.s. how does Mr. Pope define "weak", "typical", "good" and "full"?

 

I agree that it is in the 77% category. I also think this coin looks much better in hand than what the images would lead you to believe.

To answer your last question on Ron Pope's definition of the term Typical strike and the others used, I can't. After I posted my initial Pope analysis, I searched those 39 PDF files and his definition wasn't among them. The files he sent me were from one of the books he was involved in. Unfortunately that definition must be somewhere else in the book. I do wish he would have used a better descriptive term.

Here is the Strike Intro page. I thought the definition would have been found here, but.......

 

There is just to much in question about this coin to say it's good for the grade or not, without having the coin in hand . The asking price is high enough to merit a clear understanding with the Seller , that you have a right to return the coin for a full refund if it does not meet your expectations upon physical review.

 

When I wrote - "So what you're saying is the typical strike for a 1913-T1 Buffalo is a Good Strike and not a typical strike?" was an attempt at comedy in tribute to Abbott and Costello's - "WHO’S ON FIRST." I apologize if my statement was taken differently.