1914 buffalo

This is not an error coin. It is a better date.

It's better than just any 1914 Buffalo nickel, since it bears the "D" mintmark of Denver at the bottom of the reverse.

It is, therefore, a 1914-D Buffalo nickel.

As such, it is worth more than the 1914 "plain" Philadelphia coins (which had no mintmark).

Your coin appears to have about VF (Very Fine) details to my eye, based on the full horn on the buffalo.

Here are the Numismedia trend prices for the 1914-D Buffalo nickel.

In VF20, it lists for $162. Now, do bear in mind that your coin might have been cleaned or might have some slight environmental damage (minor micro-porosity) The surfaces look a tiny bit rough to me - not awful - but it's hard to say from the photos, really. Imperfections to the surfaces might bring the price down a little bit.

Still, not a bad coin at all!

PS- all of this is under the assumption that it is real and not a cast counterfeit (which would account for why the surfaces look a bit "off"). I personally do not see any obvious red flags that it's a fake, but in recent years, Chinese counterfeits have gotten more sophisticated. I don't know. I assume it's OK, but you'll want to get other opinions.

 

Hmm. Interesting, but as far as I know, the 1914/3 overdates are Philadelphia coins, which wouldn't have the "D" mintmark like yours does.

I am not a Buffalo nickel or error specialist, however, so you'll want to wait for someone else to chime in about that.

I will say that in in closeup, those surfaces look a little better.

 

Here's the full list of dates and varieties on the Numismedia page.

 

No, wait! According to CoinFacts, there IS a 1914/3-D overdate that was discovered in 2000. Check the diagnostics listed on that page.

 

I think you didn't need to be posting a second thread about the same coin.

That's a no-no.

So I moved your images from the redundant thread here. (Instead of completely deleting the content of your second thread, which is what usually would have been done).

 

BTW, in this new set of images, the second "1" in the date shows a scratch across the numeral. So it's a circulation hit that caused that bulge in the 1, there.

 

Nope. Not my thing.

You know, you can post full sized images instead of thumbnails.

 

PS- I see now that your second thread was in Error Coins, not this forum, so my apologies.

However, I think it was still redundant, and I don't think this is an error coin, anyway.

 

Yep, it's a dime, all right.

 

Yes. I don't think it's an error and I don't see any overdates or doubling, but it's a nice tough semi-key date. That's enough to be happy with.