Buffalo Grading Help

see below:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=180199611656&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=008

Reputable grader calls this a VF. I would call this a weak F as only half a horn is visible and due to the wear on the obverse rim.

Grading guidlines I've seen says you need to see a full horn to get a VF, F requires intact obverse rim and 3/4 of the horn.

Thoughts?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Looks like it had been harshly cleaned at somepoint but ANACS say no, maybe its the plastic. VF-20/25 seems about right.

Ben

 

I would grade it Fine, though I am not surprised to see it in a VF holder.

 

Subjective grading at its best. I have no talent at grading buffs but it sure doesn't look VF. Unless there is something about that year mint strike that would permit the grade.

Thats a good bit of change for a Fine grade just the same. My advice---save your money and hit a big show this year. That's my plan anyway.

 

Check out the comments at the end (after AG-3) of the ANA Guide.
States that this year/mintmark combo is notoriously weakly struck.
That's the reason 1/2 to 3/4 of a horn CAN be VF.

 

Good Job

Excellent info, thank you.

 

I would call it VF....that is with Market Grading. If this was just any old Buff it would be F, but since it is 1926-S it would get the bump. I've played the game with this date and grading, I still have some raw ones that I need to send in to get the VF grade. One I sent got the bump (and I made 200% when I sold it) and the other one stayed graded F. I ended up cracking it back out.

Speedy

 

I personally think the coin looks about F-15, but not because of the horn......because of the overall appearance of the coin.

1926-S Buffalos come horribly struck, and this coin likely never had a full horn, even as a new coin. That's why the horn alone cannot be used when grading the coin. We recently had an uncirculated 1926-S Buffalo in stock that had no horn whatsoever! The coin had the surfaces of a nice MS-64 coin with no areas of high point rub often found in lower MS graded Buffalos, but was only graded MS-60 due to the poor strike.

 

Curosity question (NOT a criticism), who graded the coin MS-60?

I have a LOT of trouble trying to figure out how strike affects a coin's grade.
I've got a 1941-S Jefferson nickel that's graded PCGS MS-65FS and the whole central portion of Monticello is mush. It appears to be a strike through.
Take a look:



I find this difficult to understand.
Hopefully I'll resolve the problem this summer.
I fully intend to take the ANA grading course in Colorado Springs.

 

The coin was graded MS-60 in a very old ANACS small holder. I imagine that it would grade 61/62 at PCGS or NGC today due to the super clean surfaces and lack of any rub. I guess the only thing I can say with regard to strike affecting grade is that it depends on the specific coin and the exact quality of the strike.

As for your Jefferson Nickel, I'm gueeing that it is a strike-through, possibly through grease. Other than the strike-through area, the coin is actually very well struck and looks like many Jefferson Nickels that are in PCGS MS-66 holders. I'm guessing that they capped the coin at a 65 due to the reverse weakness. Even though the weakness occured at the Mint, that's market grading for you.

 

My dad and I had a philosophical discussion about grading from this coin. I view a grade as telling me a minimum level of detail I can expect in a coin, sort of like the grading on a diamond. By contrast, he views a grade as telling him a certain percentage wear from the original. Thus, if a coin is weakly struck, faint details can still produce a high grade.

My sense is the market believes the latter, but it just doesn't seem right to me.

 

Doug, this is my WHOLE objection to market grading in general...

I prefer to keep grading as technical as possible, but within a few of these coin stories lies the example and therefore the argument for market grading. So I am not saying that it has no place in numismatics, but I digress...

This Jefferson is indeed a 65 if not a 66 based on it's technical condition. The fact that it was struck through something does NOT disqualify it as a gem, IMHO. I might agree that it would disclude it from choice gem (MS-67) but not gem. Other than the fact that the struck through occurs in the center of the design, and what else on the coin that was struck by the die is fully struck. Nice full steps, the fields are clear and the devices have amazingly few bag marks. I think that this coin is definately a gem! JMHO. But it is that alone... just one man's opinion.

 

Doug, I disagree that technical grading does not take strike quality into account as virtually all grading done above MS-60 is based on strike quality. I also think it's possible that sometimes we are both describing the same thing in the same basic way but using terms differently. then again, it's also possible that as Dave Mason said that "we just disagree". LOL Either way, I enjoy the discussion with you and my other CT friends.

How about this...maybe where we could come together on this is in an accurate description of the coin. The coin is a struck-thru error with strike of gem quality. I am not one that needs to pidgeon-hole stuff, I personally liked the OLD way where we just called an MS coin UNC, and you paid extra for a really nice UNC.

 

Doug:

Hairlines and luster are not really used to grade Mint State coins, they are used to determine whether or not the coin is TRULY Mint State. A large number of hairlines will downgrade the coin to damaged status, and lack of luster will result in grades below MS.

I have tried a million times to write a response to this, but in the end all I get is something that is not really on the mark of what I mean. I don't know your experience Doug, and so I am therefore slow to discount your advice, even when I don't agree. I still have a problem with Market Grading as I understand it... but maybe I just understand it incorrectly. Oh and BTW... the ANA can use any grading it wants, I don't have to subscribe to it. If you look at my track record here for grading, I think you'll find it to be neither overly harsh, nor over the top graded. I don't see a huge difference in how I grade vs. the ANA, I think I just maybe term it differently. I was hoping through discussions to learn and reconsile the differences.

 

Ok, Doug... consider this my last word on the subject. I didn't mean to attack you or your level of expertise and I think it's pretty plain that you took it as such. I apologise, but I am also done on this subject.