Thank you @fortcollins! This is great advice and I appreciate your assessment. I've learned to default towards it's not what I think it is. I'm going to take your advice and bring it to a coin show. Happy hunting everyone!
Thank you Marve65 and MisterT. I wish I had better pics for you because these don't tell the whole story. You can't see it in the pics but it has shiny spots like a proof when viewed under magnification. But I'm afraid it'll come back UNC details if I send it in for grading. Or cleaned surfaces.
Agreed on the edges not being squared. Thats one of the reasons I'm unsure if it's a proof. Also no wire rim. But I don't know if early Buffalo proofs had wire rims. Vinegar etching is something I was unaware of. Do you have a pic you can share of a vinegar etched coin? Would vinegar etching also discolor the whole planchet?
Agreed. The surfaces are strange. It weighs 5.1 g which I know is still within tolerance. XRF confirmed it's cupro nickel. But the lighter pictures are closer to it's true color and I you can see the feather detail better. So I can say with confidence there is feather detail. The high points if the details remind me of a DMPL Morgan where you can see where the satin finish has worn away and it's become shiny.
Hi. I need some Buffalo Nickel experts to weigh in here. I picked up this coin and noticed it was much lighter in color than my other Buffalos. To the point that I thought it was a different composition that just nickel and copper. Upon closer inspection, I noticed it has a matte finish.
Do I have a 1914 Buffalo Nickel Matte Finish Proof? Should I send it in for grading? What grade would you give this coin?
Ok. Here are the best images I can provide. Only working with 300 kb file sizes makes it very difficult to provide high resolution images, but these were taken with a 4k microscope. The more I examine this coin, the more I'm starting to agree with the general consensus that this is a counterfeit. I'm still holding out for hope that Oldgrouchyguy will prove us all wrong!
Something worth noting: The break on the outer edge that I just posted is right next to the date. I'm guessing that the planchet split during striking, due to a lamination error, causing the planchet to shift and machine doubling the date. If you look at the reverse, ED and S are mashed and they are on the other side of the rim break. But I'd love to hear everyone else's thoughts as well.
It measures up in both weight and diameter. You guys have me worried. I didn't think the legitimacy of the coin would be in question. Here are some better images. Hopefully this helps.
You might be right. Like I said, it does weigh 5g. But I agree. All of the other features are soft but the date is so well defined. Isn't the date one of the first features to wear on these coins?