recent slabbing of 1914/3 buffalo nickel by PCGS

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

notice above that pcgs has placed parentheses about the 3 but the word OVERDATE is used. Its odd that they are validating it is an overdate but not saying which digit can be underneath. Gotta be a 3 as both the top and bottom of the 3 are visible.

 

Exactly. Plus 1913 is the only other date possible. I highly doubt it's a future date of 1915 under there.

 

IMO, a weasel, wacko, cop out! I thought the issue with these coins was solved by ALL the TPGS's several years ago when this variety came into dispute: No more 1914/3 labels.

Now, with this recent (?) decision, the can has been opened again with a (3) and "OVERDATE." Get off the stinking fence PCGS. You are the professionals. What is it, a 1914/3 overdate or not! If you don't know for sure... Put 1914 on the label and give the FS#.

 

Shown below is an overlay done by Dr James Wiles (of CONECA) of two Buffalo nickels-a 1913 and a 1914. This is how any purported 1914/13 overdate would look.

 

Below is a macro image and a closeup image of Die #1. This is very convincing image to me.

 

And here is an image of Die #2-also quite convincing IMO.

 

I don't remember any big conclusive ah ha moment about it. I seem to recall some people thinking they had disproved it and others disagreeing. I didn't really follow the entire back and forth but don't recall any huge announcement that it was definitive.

 

Well, the people who felt they'd disproved it are Flynn and Wexler, the ones who initially published them, after more exhaustive research. The ones disagreeing are not Flynn and Wexler.

 

Fair point, but being the first doesn't make someone the end all be all of all time for something. Research and science is based off of other building off work ect. Also devils advocate if they think they were wrong before why couldn't they be now too?

To much chatter for me to call something definitively solved

 

Bill Fivaz was the person who initially reported it from a coin submitted by Roger Alexander.

 

Here's the first report of the variety from an article in "Coin World" in 1996.

 

Like all science, numismatic research is one block built upon the previous one. That's why most of the Micro O Morgans are now asserted to be counterfeits, for example.

Although they published it as an overdate with Ron Pope in The Authoritative Reference on Buffalo Nickels, Wexler currently has this to say on his website:

Flynn is even less equivocal, after focusing his considerable skill on proving to himself one way or another. I'll leave it to the reader to find his words on the subject rather than link to competing forums; it's not difficult.

Me, I have no horse in the race, except to tend to place faith in researchers of known talent with the convictions and courage to contradict their previous conclusions after more complete effort.

 

I use to have that coin like 10 plus years ago. It was graded MS 62 I think. But I sold it on ebay to a collector for $2200. So yeah I am sure there are still out there for searching. I am also thinking that not many out there who has buffalo nickel probably don't even know about this 4/3 nickel.

 

I agree with John Wexler's opinion as stated above except to say that the curve of the "3" can be seen immediately above the crossbar of the "4" on most early die state examples of Dies #1 and #2. That curve can be seen on the closeup of Die #1 above. Incomplete numerals aren't uncommon on an initial hubbing-see the 1916/16 nickel for an example. In addition, there was an attempt to efface the possible underdigit. Eight of the ten dies show distinctly different patterns of effacement lines. On the other two the lines are nearly absent. I was the third co-author of the "Auth Guide." Other researchers of known talent might be Bill Fivaz and JT Stanton, among others, who believe this is a legitimate overdate. I doubt the issue will ever be conclusively settled one way or another, so as John says above, each collector should draw their own conclusions.

 

Well, that puts you in a position to have a more informed opinion than, for instance, me.

Were the dates on the hub?

 

Dates are entered on the master die. Two prevailing theories as to how it happened-either an unfinished 1913 hub subsequently finished with a 1914 or a number of working dies that were overdated. I think the former is more likely.

 

I have no horse in the race either other than I have seen those research talents challenged by big names before. My strongest personal opinion on the issue is that as of now it is far from disproved. There was enough there to have convinced people in the first place. There should be more of a consensus in my opinion before it is entirely written off.

 

I can't really see the 3 on the coin.
I am not saying it's not there, maybe someone could highlight it for me.
I am going to have to dig out my 1914 and look harder at it.
I don't see what the fuss is with the graders designation of 1914/(3)
overdate. Both are true statements

 

The best evidence to me is the pattern of effacement marks around the "4" as shown on the following images of Dies #1, 2, and 3. All are different, so this was done to at least ten separate working dies. The workers at the Mint were trying to remove SOMETHING-I doubt they would have gone to all this trouble to remove anything other than an erroneous underdigit. There's no other treatment like this on any other die in the entire series-that would include several thousand individual dies.