My Latest Buffalo Nickel Haul

That would be much appreciated. Both my 16 and 18 examples in my set are acid dates, so this coin will be an upgrade either way. I just want to be sure before I put it in my folder. Thanks for doing this.

The indentation argument is not that convincing for me. It could be a well placed hit, scratch or wear pattern. The size of the loops and the mintmark observation I made earlier are much clearer to see. With that much wear on the date, sometimes it is better to examine the larger picture rather than get hung up on minute details like a possible indent. The mintmark is in the position that it is in, no question about it. If you look at many 1916-S and 1918-S Buffalo nickels and compare the mintmark position, you will find that it closely matches 1916-S.

By the way, I've spent a lot of time staring at worn Buffalo nickels..and I know how frustrating it can be.

Nice 1916-S!

OK. Just to be on the safe side, I did a double-check of the alignment of the known coins over the "mystery coin." I did have to make some tiny adjustments to get the alignment just right, but I think they're right on now.

The reason I say this is that it is not as obvious as I had stated before that the OP's coin is a 1916. Once I corrected the alignment of the 1918 over the coin and shifted the transparency, I could see how some features do line up with the 1918:


But I still think it is a 1916:

In addition to having the arch over the lower loop, the OP's coin has two light reflections -- one at the bottom inside of the loop and one right where the loop connects to the left side -- that exactly match a pair of reflections on the 1916. Those reflections are there because there is still enough metal in the 6 to produce a raised feature for the light to reflect off of.

The upper reflection helps demonstrate that the number is a 6, not an 8. Look again on the 1918 image - a portion of the 8 would have to cross where that raised area is, and if it was an 8, there would be no raised feature to create that reflection. Or it would be in a different spot.

But what about the indentation on the left that people are seeing? I think that is a result of that portion of the 6 - on the side just above where the loop connects - is rather thin and wears a little quicker than the rest of the 6. In searching for a good photo to use for this project, I came across a number of low-grade 1916 coins where this area was worn even with the surrounding metal, whereas other parts of the 6 were still visible.

Anyway, between this and the other markers referred to by other posters, I think this is a 1916-S. But the images are now here for anyone to judge for themselves. To quote Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that."

Thanks! Like I posted before, I took it as a challenge. And although I'm convinced it's a 1916, I can see how someone may still think it's a 1918, so I'm gonna leave it in the hands of other more capable experts at this point.

Here is another piece of evidence that I saw in the animated pictures that makes me think it might be 1916. Look at the bottom right of both the 6 and the 8. The bottom of the 8 is very close to the ribbon, and the bottom of the 6 is much further away. In my coin, the bottom of the digit appears to be more spaced from the ribbon, making it a 6. Any thoughts on that?

Let's look at the mintmark on each example as one poster said.

Here are some for 16-S:





Now 1918:





Now my coin:



It does kinda appear that my example is more consistent with the 1916 size/position. Any thoughts?