GTG 1937-S NGC Buffalo Nickel

Please guess the grade of the 1937-S Buffalo Nickel shown below by voting in the attached poll. This is my brother's NEWP for his Buffalo Nickel short set.



As always, comments welcome!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

MS 66. Great details, sharp fields, decent strike, beautiful toning. A solid Gem. Could be 66+ just as easily.

 

+1

 

I am at MS64.

 

+2 66 nice coin.

 

I’m guessing it didn’t fare well at the graders. MS-63* but i’m Basically an untrained chimp.

 

I’m curious, what is it about the coin that you think holds it back to an MS63? Don’t worry about your experience, just tell us what you think.

 

May be some wear in the buffalo shoulder and the high points on the hair. I am terrible about discerning wear from strike details and quality though. My appeal and assessment are often different than TPG’s. It’s a great looking nickel. Would gladly have it in the collection.

 

MS 65; a few too many ticks and small hits to go higher and no star based on the black (carbon?) spots scattered on the obverse (plus Buffalo nickels seem to be more scarce with stars; the ones I've seen tended to have more rainbow colors).

 

If you think there is wear, you need to guess an AU grade (58) or lower. By definition, MS grades have no wear.

 

Ok, AU-63*. .

 

I'm at '64 on this piece.

Paul wrote the book on this system a few years back. Actually, it wasn't a book, but an convincing thread regarding such assessment back a few years ago.

 

Strike: Not great, not terrible. 64 - 66 range.

Luster: Pretty good in these images, but it shows signs of weakness. It is not full and blazing throughout. 64-65 range.

Eye Appeal: Quite attractive, with some exceptions. The reverse toning is quite nice. The obverse toning isn't anything to write home about, but it has a pleasant color (unusual on nickel). The eye appeal killer here are the many flyspecks (hair, feather, cheek, under the nose, obverse field, and buffalo's rump). My eye was drawn to them immediately, and I consider them a negative. 65-ish range.

Contact marks..... prolific. Tiny tickmarks cover the coin, in focal and non-focal areas. There aren't any big marks, but there are a lot of tiny marks. There don't appear to be as many marks in the obverse fields, which is good, but there are quite a few on the reverse under the bull. Way too many marks for a high grade. 64, tops.

All this is pointing to a 64 coin, in my opinion. This is an extremely common coin in this grade, so either he really, really liked the way it looked, or it looks significantly better in hand, or its overgraded. If I was building a set, I'd go for a 66 of this date, at the least (still an extremely common coin).

I noticed you listed "star" as an option on this poll.... this coin is absolutely not worthy of a star, and should not have received one. That doesn't mean it didn't, of course, but it shouldn't have.

 

There are actually four spots but the one on the feather is masked more by the toning. Anyway, I'm here to say I agree. And the TPG can give it whatever grade it wants, but there's no question, the eye-movement through it is disrupted pretty big time. And it affects the way we feel about it. And that's just Art Appreciation 101. It's MS64 for my money, although five will get you a dime the TPG sees it higher.

 

MS65

(I put MS64* instead of MS65 on accident in the poll lol. Sorry)

 

It looks like a 64 that I see netgraded to 63 for the spots. The tics hold it back from gem in my book.

 

I see the marks but I bet the luster stronger in hand and the color nice. I’m guessing it got an eye appeal bump to 66 from being a technical 65

 

I have a hard time seeing this as a Gem coin.
I went 64* for the toning, even with the focal carbon spot.

 

64+

 

I really thought that the overall toning and eye appeal of the coin in combination with gem luster would be enough to overcome the carbon spots, but I guess I was wrong.