1916-S 5c Buffalo Nickel With No Initial Under Date & Large Embedded MM

Thanks fc. I don't have the coin yet, but will certainly post clear pics when I get it. Appreciate your ongoing help.

CoinWorld wrote an article on the 1916-S 5c counterfeit called "Counterfeiters target common Buffalo nickel" on July 24, 2015:
https://www.coinworld.com/news/prec...-nickel.html

The article has a picture of the counterfeit and the markers can be seen.



The die crack at 8:30 on the known counterfeit:

My coin does not appear to have this die crack:

The fake also shows the mintmark:

It appears different from my coin because the MM is not touching the E in FIVE. In my coin, the S is touching or embedded in the E in FIVE. In addition, the S mm in the fake is close to and touching the rim whereas the S mm on my coin is far away from the rim:


It is possible that there was more than one set of counterfeit dies made and the counterfeit dies were different, but this known documented fake coin does not appear to match the coin I purchased.

Another discussion seems to indicate that: "Counterfeit examples are not found above VF due to the poor quality of the dies."

This appears consistent with the two sets of pictures of counterfeits.

This same discussion indicates: "The 1916-S contemporary counterfeit is known to have at least two different obverse and reverse dies. The first pair of dies has a bison that appears to be anorexic, and an Indian profile, while similar, is markedly different than the Indian profile on a genuine coin The second set of dies has an Indian and a buffalo closer in appearance to the appearance of a genuine nickel and is thought to be the counterfeiter's attempt to "get it right". Is there any additional information?"

We have seen two examples of counterfeits. Neither seems to be well executed.

To me this is a solid EF-40, if not 45.

A nice looking EF-45 with a strong horn. This one looks genuine to me.

I'm definitely rooting for your coin to be genuine! The differences in mm position from your coin to the counterfeit are encouraging.

I wish I had taken better notes. My notes read "first ones grainy, counterfeiter polished dies during minting, later coins better struck, no idea when die cracks appeared." I don't remember any more about what was said about the later strikes being better or die cracks (plural). I'm also not sure about my notes saying "started appearing a couple years ago." That would eliminate a contemporary counterfeit. *shrug* I just can't remember the whole conversation on this one. The die crack on the one you posted from Coin World sure matches what I remember, though. I do remember wondering why on earth anybody would counterfeit a 1916-S.

@numismatic student, thanks for posting the new photos. Your coin is NOT the counterfeit that was described in Portland. It is also not the cast counterfeit in the article that you mentioned.

I enlarged your photo of the mm. It is the regular blocked serif "S" mm used from 1913 to 1917. There are two markers for this mm. There is a die chip inside the upper curl of the "S" and there is a sharply squared lower serif. Here is the enlarged photo:


There is a weak die crack from the rim through the second feather on your coin. It does not match the description I heard in Portland of a "big crack 2nd feather to head." Die cracks at the second feather are common throughout the Buffalo series. Here is your die crack:



On the missing designer's initial, here is a photo of another 1916 Buff (not your coin) showing the location of the initial on the 1916 Buffs:


Here is your coin, with an arrow pointing to what appears to be the very weak remnant of the designer's initial.


Here is my best guess on what happened to your coin.

There is evidence of the common die clash and enthusiastic die polishing to eliminate the clash. On the obverse, note the weakness on the chin, throat, and tip of the second feather. The curve of the buffalo's neck and shoulder is still plainly visible to the right of the lower second feather. On the reverse, note the weakness in "RIB" of PLURIBUS, weakness in the buffalo's right rear leg, and the polishing marks at the top of the buffalo's head. These are the common clash locations.

My best guess is that the designer's initial was either mostly obliterated by the crossbar of the first "T" in STATES during the clash or was overpolished in the attempt to eliminate the clash.

Bottom line: your coin appears to be a genuine 1916 Buff. The designer's initial is essentially a goner. You made a good purchase. You have an interesting coin.