Bought a coin with less than optimal pictures.. I've been working on my proof buffalo collection and just picked this up hoping that it is a proof. The detail on this low resolution photo of a 1913 type 1 nickel looks very similar to my 1913 type 2 proof. Seller called it prooflike. It went for a bit more than a mint state buffalo, and I (likely) may have been taken, but looking forward to finding out. Hope springs eternal until it dies on the rocks.. Will let you know how much of a sucker I am...
The pictures are too small to really give a good opinion on proof, or prooflike. Anyway you can enlarge them to see all the details clearly?
Nope, that's all I had to go on. When I get the coin, I'll take some bigger (not necessarily better ) photos.
Just got the coin in and am torn. It has the same matte proof luster as my 1913 type 2, but has a little less definition (detail) on the coin. Here is a photo of the reverse (couldn't get the lighting right-- it has a better detail than this, especially around the ear): Was looking on heritage and saw this PCGS PR66 type 1 with the same weakness on the pluRIBus and without super strong rims all around.. maybe I still have hope: I'm guessing it isn't a proof, but am surprised by the lack of traditional uncirculated luster.. Thoughts?
Oh.. The front does have very strong hair details, but I couldn't get a shot I liked in this batch.. will try again tomorrow.
Nice coin. I am not an expert but have bought and opened original rolls of buffs and I see the same matte luster you describe. I always wondered if it was variations in planchets since I have a roll of 37's once where 90% were lustrous, and the other 10% were sort of matte. Other way man its a nice coin that I don't think you will ever regret owning. These seem somewhat common now, but I see these as extremely scarce and desired in the next 50 years. Chris P.S. Its a hobby, no place for "rules" here.
