1913 S Buffalo Nickel Type 1 RPD Or LDS?

Yeah, I don't know, I'm certainly no expert at these. I've been trying to find one on Heritage with the 3 that high in relation to the other digits, and not finding any. The bottom loop of 3 is odd and the 9 looks off to me as well. The coin is so mushy and yet the date pops out, weird.

From Heritage Auction 1913 S Type 1 MS 65 listing:

Generally not seen well struck, 1913-S 5C has satin like luster

Sharper pics would help, but even without, I'm going to say counterfeit.

What I'm seeing: most of the devices are mushy. The bust is quite mushy with a lack of sharpness, but LIBERTY is still sharp? Red flag. Why? Because LIBERTY was in lower relief and not as sharp as your example shows. Also, the argument of a later die state can be countered by the fact that there are no metal flow lines. Fields are smooth, there are no signs of clashing or polishing, no signs of metal flow from aging dies that match the lack of sharpness of the chiefs bust.

Lettering of the date also looks off/inconsistent, as does the designer initial. It's normal to see some mushiness in the designer initial as dies wear, but again, there is no sign of metal flow in that area.

Same goes for the MM, surprisingly sharp with no signs of metal flow surrounding it.

Also, the back of the Buffalo directly below EPU "appears" to be deteriorated from die use, but yet EPU is still almost making contact? Typically with Die Deterioration and die use comes die polishing. Die polishing removes the lowest posts of relief in that area, causing the devices to become "smaller" and the fields affectively "larger". With die polishing EPU typically thins out, the back becomes sloped, which in extreme situations gives us the "broken back" varieties. This separation can be seen and is a good marker for authentication on the 37-D 3 leg.

This is not seen on this example, and again, the lack of true Die Deterioration, die polishing, metal flow, etc is a red flag and has me pretty firmly at counterfeit.


All they said, thank you for sharing, it's quite a cool example!

Note: didn't proof read any of the above, sorry for any grammatical errors.

I say that the coin is counterfeit.

I don't see anything that screams "Counterfeit!". Ther edge damage can be explained by the collar mechanism; the coin has to be held in place to be collared. The edge cracked a little by application of the press, which diameter is juuuust a bit narrower than the nickel's. Nickel is really hard (pun there) for the layman to work with to strike just Nickels. It's not a cast counterfeit, which makes the case for it being a counterfeit that much less. Plus, the edge is upset

The tops of all the digits of the date on a authentic 1913 are even. This coin shows the top bar of the 3 to be well above the level of the other numerals. Since the numerals of the date were not punched into each individual working die for the Buffalo nickel series,there is no way for this to happen on a authentic coin. No amount of die wear or planchet deformation can account for the position of the 3 on this coin.
This coin was not produced at the mint.

Oldgrouchyguy: Do you mean scan in a computer scanner?

I'll have to respectfully disagree. After the last set of images, 100% a counterfeit. On top of everything else previously mentioned, the reverse lettering is way off. Lower portion of E in AMERICA and C in CENT stand out the most to me.