What is going on with surface of this 1930 Buffalo?

Amen, brother. Want them? I'll take offers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm so sorry.

OK, OK...ENVISION THIS...Someone tried to remove a tiny black spot in the middle of the obverse with a file. When he saw how deep the spot went into the surface, he realize it was actually a struck thru! Unfortunately, he needed to file even deeper to remove it and the file marks on the coin. Now, the only way to "fix" his work was to put acid on the head to etch the surface. Oh no, the chemical started to run on untouched parts of the coin, ran over the edge and burned his fingers.

 

Like a cleaning cloth soaked in nitric acid.

 

What does it weigh?
Curious if it is 1/10 of a gram light. I realize that would still fall within
the guidelines, but it would suggest that some metal was taken away.

 

Yes, struck-through cloth soaked in an unknown chemical (less likely) or perhaps something corrosive was stuck to the coin for a long time and later peeled off (most likely). Those are best explanations I can come up with.

 

My favorite theory I just came up with is a gentleman in 1930 was carrying the nickel in his pocket when one night an alien shot him with a powerful laser. The striations were caused by the laser light leaking through the corduroy pants he was wearing prior to being vaporized. The nickel being a hard metal survived the incident.

 

Plausible.

 

I thought at least someone would suggest that this was a poorly mixed alloy that created a puddle of pure nickel. Let's say that puddle had a couple of outlying swirls. When rolled out flat there was a region of harder metal at the center and another at the lower edge. Since nickel is hard to strike (perhaps it was partially crystallized?) it did not flow properly and left deep striations instead of smooth luster. You could explain a consistent set of directional lines as coming from the direction of the impurities of the original planchet.

Just a thought, mostly because I'm having a hard time reconciling a chemical event that was harsh enough to cause damage like this, but that also left no other trace in the luster or toning.

 

It is obvious that possibly some of, but NOT all of these so called Expert observations, may be accurate, but I have very little faith in those who think their opinions are to be considered fact. Obviously, there is still some room for debate in this seemingly decisive think tank.

 

It is NOT a poorly mixed alloy. Now as to your "thought." Very carefully, drop some sulfuric acid on a BU Buffalo nickel and watch what happens.

 

You will find that some things in numismatics ARE fact. You will find that some members here are EXTREMELY knowledgeable numismatists.
Over time, you will be able to separate them and their informed opinion (as I do) from the ones who think they are informed and spout misleading "trash."

Read Post#142. That is a perfect example of a "trash" opinion from me , myself , and I .

The coin is chemically etched - 100%. No arguments, no further opinion is needed. Learn what it looks like for the next time one is posted and let the "Ex-Perts" continue to post fanciful theories.

 

Advice well noted!

 

If I am reading Mike's response correctly, the "grain" is the result of milling the blank rolls.

I don't see any scratches except outside the affected areas.

I can surmise that as it reacted, it bubbled and spread.

Despite all that, I am still dumbfounded at how anything etched with acid could possible leave a shiny or lustrous surface behind.

 

Metal objects have internal structure (I'm sounding like a certain member here ). Oh, and this is just my opinion.

Metal objects (most?)have internal structure. Before becoming a coin the alloy is mixed, cooled, rolled, drawn. punched, annealed, and upset. Then it is struck into a coin. I believe all the processes above tend to align the internal atoms of the coin.

One thing for sure, I do know what strong acid does to a coins surface as I have destroyed a few as a youth. The surface is changed - often with a colored (yellow in this case) build up we see on the edge. Note: I was not 100% sure what happened to the coin (except for the "flow") UNTIL the OP posted a photo of the edge.

Anyway, the deep ridges you ask about are not normal. The surface around and on the feathers and edge is a solid characteristic of chemical alteration. So, my guess is that the chemical was first on the center (longer and more concentrated) and then ran outward allowing for deeper penetration that formed the deeper etch.

Ans as I said, I believe the "straight lines" on the coin were atomically in the metal. Note that ALL the etching is vertical. Now we can all wait for a metallurgist to post something.

There is a well-respected Indian cent numismatist (not Rick Snow) whose name escapes me (old age) who is a metallurgist who would probably answer your question better or more accurately.

EDIT: Chris Pillod There may be hope for my brain after all.

 

The acid did not touch all of the coin. Also, the reflection of light from the striations and any toning on the destroyed portion would shine if the light is oriented properly. Think of those large groves as just humongous die radials.

 

Doh!

But it is shiny on all angle of the surface.

HUH? What are die radials?

 

The more I hear, the more I like my theory.

No way, I've only got three of them.

But I kind of approach this with Occam's razor.

Everything I suggested are mechanical processes that would happen at the mint before the strike, allowing all surfaces to age and tone exactly the same for the ensuing 86 years.

It also explains how the effect could be present on the edges of the coin, since the puddle of bad metal would be pooled in one side of the ingot before rolling, and could not have been forced through the ingot to the other side no matter how many rollers it passed through. When struck, the poor metal would be at the surface of only one side of the coin.

I am still thinking this approach explains more of the visible phenomena with more economy of explanation.

 

When some posters have NOTHING to contribute they can turn cranky and sarcastic. Why not write more on "D" punches...