1926-D Buffalo Nickel - A Fun Grading And Evaluation Exercise

Ok, these are my wild guesses as I don't know Jack about Buffalo nickels.

1) technical grade - MS65
2) die states - VLDS, both sides
3) strike quality is poor. Not knowing anything about the '26-D, I'll say that die wear and heavy polishing has compromised and washed out the finer details on all devices
4) I don't see obvious clashing.
5) heavy polishing has wiped out what might otherwise be obvious clash marks
6a) die state match - 2
b) strike quality/consistency - 2 (obv & rev equally bad)
c) clash/clash polishing - 0

This maybe a super buff, but if I was looking for a high grade type coin, this one would be at the bottom.

As said, I know nothing about buffs, but look forward to learning when you share your observations, FC!

I'll try this

1) MS62
2) Obverse maybe MDS, reverse VLDS.
3) Poor strike quality, late reverse die stage and especially on the reverse you can see lots of polishing marks
4) I don't see clashing, I'm not very good at noticing them though.
5) Lots of polishing appears to have removed the clashing marks but at the cost of quality?
6a) 1, observe die appears to be MDS but reverse is a very late stage. Obverse also has well defined lettering but reverse is so washed out in lettering quality.
6b) Obverse 3.5, reverse 1
6c) Obverse 3 reverse 2?
Final rating (1 + (3.5+1)/2 + (3+2)/2)/15 =
5.75/15

This coin has very low eye appeal with the mismatched die states, and very late stage for the reverse die. It feels like the reverse was made of the consistency of a flattened piece of play dough.

Your questions are way beyond my grading skills for this series, so I'll just spitball some of my thoughts. It looks mint state with excellent luster and very few surface marks, so I'd say MS-64, perhaps even 65. The die states are extremely mismatched, with severe die wear and polishing on the reverse, and much less so on the obverse. The obverse strike actually looks pretty strong for this date at a branch mint. Overall eye appeal is not very good due to the mismatched dies and Die Deterioration and polishing on the reverse. That's all I got!

Everyone did very well with this coin. Give yourself a pat on the back!

Ron Pope believed that the 1926-D was the most poorly struck Buffalo. He (correctly) attributed the poor quality to die wear, rather than strike. Here's what he wrote:




Pope, Ronald. Buffalo Nickels: The Abraded Die Varieties, Pub. By Author, 2006, 33rd Printing Nov. 2016, M-15.

This is a known 1926-D die pair. There is some question whether this reverse die was used in 1925, and continued service into 1926. If it wasn't a known pair, attributing the mint mark could come down to position. The 1926 Denver mint marks tend to be closer to the "E" of FIVE and the 1926 San Francisco mint marks tend to be centered or slightly closer to the "C" of CENTS.

(1) Technical grade: I land on MS-63 here because of the number of small dings throughout the central devices and the heavier knock on the Indian's cheek. I could be arm-twisted to MS-63+. The TPG sees this as MS-64.
(2) The obverse die is earlier than the reverse die. The difference in die polishing is one clue that can be helpful to watch for. The reverse die is extensively polished. The obverse die is also well polished, but not as extensively. IMHO the obverse is MDS, maybe LMDS. The reverse is terminal, VLDS.
(3) Strike quality is tricky here. Notice some of the obverse detail that is intact: the bottoms of the ribbons, hair knot, hair braid detail, nostril, and the crease in the cheek behind the nostril. That suggests at least an average strike, and possibly a slightly better than average strike for this date and mint. With only average clashing on the obverse, maybe average or a little more die polishing, and not a particularly bad strike, the only things left to focus on for the blob-like reverse are die state and the planchet, and nothing here suggests a deficient planchet.
(4) Clashing has already been addressed a bit. On the obverse, there are clear clash marks for the chin/EPU clash and the right rear hoof / "LI" of LIBERTY clash. The second feather / "U" of UNITED clash hasn't been polished, and the Indian's neck / buffalo's hump clash is minimal. The reverse is a different story. There is clear evidence of a second feather clash to the left of the "U" in UNITED. That doesn't match the clash alignment on the obverse. The chin/EPU clash is also slightly angled, and that doesn't match the clash squarely below the Indian's chin on the obverse. These factors suggest that the reverse die was mated with a different obverse before this obverse die, and had already clashed quite a bit before these two dies clashed.
(5) Unlike the modest polishing on the obverse, the reverse has been abraded in at least four different directions, SW-to-NE across the buffalo's back, N-to-S at the buffalo's belly, SE-to-NW at the rear legs, and E-to-W at the tail. No wonder the poor former buffalo looks like a pancake!
(6) Overall eye appeal evaluation:
(a) Die state and match. The dies are mismatched, but not as badly as some of the die pair from the two previous years in Denver. LMDS/VLDS is an eye appeal mismatch, but is pretty common for the branch mint buffs. The die state is the issue here, and any VLDS dies produce ugly pancakes. I hate to beat a dead buffalo, but in the context of a brutally poor date and mint fir quality, this is a 2. Barely.
(b) Strike quality and consistency. The strike isn't completely awful, and it's fairly consistent. I'd go 3 here.
(c) Clashing and clash polishing. The reverse is awful. It significantly hurts eye appeal. This is a known die pair, and almost all of the coins from this pair lack eye appeal. This coin is so late in the life span and the reverse die has been tortured by this point. I'm at a 1 here.
These three categories land at a 6 out of a possible 15 points, placing this coin low in the middle third of desirability for the date and mint.

Overall, it's an UNC, and a mid-UNC. It has nice luster. It hasn't been abused and doesn't have anything that screams "details." It just lacks eye appeal. Even in the context of a very tough date for quality, there are better examples available.

The branch mints deserve a little bit of love here. Remember that their first experience with cupro-nickel coinage was the 1912 Liberty nickel, and that coin had shallow relief, struck more easily, and didn't wear out the dies as much. The cluttered higher relief Buffalo nickel design was an experimental nightmare for the branch mints. In contrast, Philadelphia had more than a half century of experience with cupro-nickel coinage. The branch mints were entirely dependent on Philadelphia for their dies and coining presses. Philadelphia could make an unlimited supply of dies for its own use, and didn't always share its toys equally with its playmates. Philadelphia was closer to the manufacturers and had an easier time obtaining coining presses. The western mints, in particular, had to have the presses shipped by rail if Philadelphia allowed them to acquire new presses. The branch mints were created to strike gold and silver coinage, which required much less striking pressure. To meet production quotas and keep the Mint Director happy, the branch mints had a Hobson's Choice: reduce striking pressure to extend die life or maintain pressure and work dies long past shelf life. Either choice produced poorer quality coins than Philadelphia.

Again, kudos to all. Everyone did very well decoding this pancake!

I must say that my assessment is very similar to yours hitting almost all points. a tribute to several years of knowledge being passed on.

I feel more comfortable now than ever with this series. the area I need the most work on is clashing. I find that the minute clashes are still extremely difficult to uncover. once they are pointed out I can see most of them. some not so much like your note regarding the second feather clash to the left of the "U" in UNITED. cant see that for the life of me.

this was a great exercise and I hope new folks at least took some time to look at this so that they have at least a general understanding that what you see may not actually be what you see backing up my previous comments that this is one the most challenging series to assess.

thanks FC for taking the time to pass these on

jeez that clash looks like a shadow from lighting. I can see it now since you pointed it out

one last question on the reverse under the beard there appears to be a raised area of metal. abraded?

@fortcollins, thank you for sharing your tremendous knowledge about this series. Your analyses are always so educational.