| Author |
 Replies: 18 / Views: 2,264 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1536 Posts |
Does this look like a 1913D Type II Buffalo nickel? I bought it but can't seem to make it out.    |
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
14463 Posts |
can you get clearer and closer pictures of the date location and the mint mark?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1536 Posts |
  Looks it, I need to get a better pic of the reverse but it takes time to scan them at this resolution and need to upload it to Photobucket because of the size. |
|
Moderator
United States
16679 Posts |
It's a 1913, and there is definitely a mintmark there however, I can't tell if it's a D or S.
swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1536 Posts |
I was kind of ticked that these coins were all restored when the seller didn't mention and the pics were dark. He doesn't offer returns but this is obvious "item not as described" and could go through Paypal.
He said that restored is included within the term filler but these two words do not have the same meaning.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1536 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1431 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Israel
2420 Posts |
 . That's a D  . |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1536 Posts |
OK, thanks. I wanted to verify that this is in fact a 1913D Type II. I can see with these better pics it is. I don't agree that the seller's term "filler" and "restored" are the same. A filler is subjective. A filler can be a very fine coin in an AU or above collection. I am not going to go into with him though. If a coin is restored and the seller is aware of it, IMO, buyers should be informed of it. If I sell it, I will just use the 15% to 20% of value rule that people agree is the value of a restored date.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Israel
2420 Posts |
buddy, I do agree with both "filler" and "restored". The coin is F2 at best, and it looks like someone applied some acid (or an alternative) to reveal the date (the bright, grainy area around the date suggests it). IMO, in an ebay auction, this will bring no more than 15$, and I doubt if it will even go this high. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1536 Posts |
I was going to do BIN $16 and start the bidding at 13 with shipping, I could get at least one bid at that I think--maybe. I asked the seller if these were restored and he said restored dates are included with fillers. I don't believe that to be true, he should have listed they were restored. I may want to collect all MS buffs but may settle with a VF for this coin or 1914S or something. These VF coins would be fillers. I believe a filler is a filler and a restored date is something else. I would list that the coins are restored. The coins were dark in the photo. I could claim not as described but won't since I got them pretty cheap. I also got 1914D, 1914S, along with 1913S and 1913D type I.
Edited by buddy16cat
01/25/2013 05:09 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1291 Posts |
As one who sells a lot of restored nickels on ebay, I can tell you that ebay would not have approved of what this seller did (assuming you've correctly described it in your post). Describing the nickels as "restored" is not even good enough. ebay has 4 "phrases" for describing these nickels and you have to choose one of them to use in your description. They're all a little derogatory, IMO, but the one I use and which I find to be be the least offensive is "chemically altered". Care to divulge the ebay ID of the seller...? |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1536 Posts |
Here is the listing. I know I could get a refund since it wasn't mentioned that these coins were restored. I think restored isn't really an offensive term. I know that if I was to do a claim and return them, I could get my money back. I was a little disappointed. I also didn't like the seller just said that "fillers and culls include restored date". I just looked at the picture and did notice the 1914D was restored by the picture but didn't realize all of them were. At 6 dollars a piece for two semi-keys, that isn't a bad price. I wasn't about to get into it with this guy, I just asked if the coins were restored but then realize after getting a picture of all them, all were restored. http://www.ebay.com/itm/5-KEY-DATE-...p=true&rt=ncEdited by buddy16cat
01/25/2013 4:07 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1291 Posts |
Yeah, I hear you. It's not like highway robbery or anything. If you knew in advance the coins were chemically altered and paid this much for them I'd say you got them at a reasonable price. Not knowing they were chemically altered, however, makes the transaction a disappointment. He should have described them better; you should have been able to detect what you were getting by a couple of his photographs. We live and we learn.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1536 Posts |
Yes, the last lot of Buffalo nickels I bought had a couple better dates in it that were restored but the two by two's were clearly marked. I may have sold a couple Buffalo nickels that were restored but I was unaware of it. Do you think this is restored? I am thinking not.  Edited by buddy16cat
01/25/2013 6:38 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2311 Posts |
Looks to me it was... you see the weird fuzz? That's what it makes when you use acid. I did 500 buffalo's.
|
| |
Replies: 18 / Views: 2,264 |
Posted 01/25/2013 12:40 am
