Nicadate Buffalo Album

I actually thought about all of those, but I had citric acid in mind mainly. It would probably have less impurities/extra ingredients than vinegar. Or maybe sodium bisulfate/pool supply pH-minus. But I can't experiment until I get some dateless buffs!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It's worth a try. I do have some of that on hand, and might give it a shot at some point. But ordinary white vinegar is plenty pure enough. (Don't use cider vinegar; it does have staining impurities, and it's too good to spend on metal etching!)

 

I don't know why all these experiments are necessary when we know that Peroxide and Vinegar do a great job and leave a nice looking coin. I use 40 Volume Peroxide (clear) and Vinegar. Here are some examples. I had tried another localized product on the 1891 Liberty. That's why the date area is discolored. The dates on the 1911 and the 1891 just jumped out in a matter of minutes.

 

Heck, it's not necessary to restore dates in the first place. But figuring things out is fun.

 

I enjoy your periodic science class reminders. Good for the learning/relearning process!

Inspector - nice recovery efforts. Like you, I took a nicadated specimen I found in a roll and did the vinegar/h2o2 mix. I recovered the date too, but it did have the same mark. I prefer the more even look achieved with the 50/50 mix.

Did you experiment with the reused mixture where the mix took longer to etch? Did you notice a change in the finish of the etch?

 

Yes to both questions. Thanks for the feedback.

 

Sure, sounds like a fun a set and cheap.

I think you might find some of these coins exceedingly difficult to find restored. Not because of low mintages but a propensity to be saved before the date wore off and then because the dates were completely obliterated even to great depth by poor strikes and extreme wear. I don't have enough experience to make any educated guesses as to which specific dates but I believe the '21-S, '13-S t2 and '15-D might be among them. The '21-Sbecause it was heavily saved and the others because of strike characteristics and excessive wear. Even some "common" dates could be difficult as restored.

 

I think I used to have or might still an '18/'17-D. It wasn't a great example because it falls just below being positively identifiable.

 

I wish someone would do a large-scale study on this. My impression has been that rarities did NOT commonly get attention and get set aside in that era, and that as a result their representation in dateless/restored coins is in closer proportion to their actual montages.

Notable exceptions include the 1883 No Cents nickel, which is one of the most common coin in that series in higher grades, and the 1950-D nickel. Both of those got set aside in bulk.

In contrast, look at the 1916 SLQ. It had a very low mintage, and I'm sure collectors at the time were aware of it. But it's still not unusual to find 1916 examples among dateless Type I SLQs, identifiable by other design points. That tells me that many if not most of them did circulate enough to lose their dates. My guess is that it would be the same with the early Buffalo keys.

 

Here are two 1913-S Type 2 that I have identified. I have others that look to be Type 2. I will post them as I finish them.

 

I agree that their proportions will approximate mintages but I'm talking about raw numbers here. There just weren't many '13-S or '15-D nickels made and both these dates can be poorly made which decreases the percentage of that date than can be restored. They are also among the oldest so wore out sooner and had higher attrition. Conversely you'll never see a '31-S that requires restoration because so many were saved and so few circulated a long time.

 

Here are a few no-date that I just finished.

 

Take it from a really old collector, they're a total waste of time and money. Just my opinion, of course.

 

When, after more than 75 years of collecting, you run out of coins to collect, you do stuff that may be considered a waste of time. Money? In my case you are talking about piles of Buffalos saved from years back, a little Peroxide and Vinegar and relaxation. Thanks for the feedback. We need it all.

 

When I started pickling my worn flat nickels, I was surprised but delighted to see that better date/mm specimens were out there. So I started an old folder of them to keep track. I note that I found mostly D and P specimens but a few S mint items along the was. Being on the East Coast I’m not surprised by this but seeing others finding better date/mm specimens from that mint doesn’t surprise me either from collectors further west. I agree with Jeff’s assessment; the mix I’ve seen are consistent with what I might expect, so early hoarding of lower mintages played a smaller role if at all.

 

One thing you have to consider is that date and mint collecting did not become popular until the early to mid 1930's. By that time the scarcer early date coins had had 20 years to wear down those dates on the buffalo nickels.

 

I personally don't see a problem with it: collect what you want.

Nic-a-dated nickels are damaged, obviously, but a slightly damaged nickel you can identify as a specific date is worth more than an undamaged nickel you can't identify. But that's pretty obvious.

Collecting them specifically? Sure, why not. I have a buffalo album and I'm proud to say most of the nickels in it cost me exactly 5 cents because I found most of them from roll hunting nickels. Some of them I did in fact nic-a-date to be able to identify them. For me it's not about collecting nic-a-dated nickels as collecting nickels I can honestly say were about 95% "found" not just bought.

Though I am seriously considering buying bulk dateless buffaloes to have some fun nic-a-dating them (there's just something satisfying about doing that for some reason lol). I think that still kind of counts as "finding" them.

 

Fun to play with. Years ago I found a few better date ones.