Variance With TPG's Assessment Of Buffalo Nickel's In MS

This series has always been prone to grading variance. One of its issues was a wide range in strike quality. Even determining the difference between an MS62/63 and an AU55/58 can be tough sometimes because its not readily apparent what was a soft strike and what was actual wear. In getting into the MS64-66 range, I still haven't figured out their methods to the madness. On the 1935-38 dates where MS64-66 are rather common, I cant say I've figured out the whys to what they assigned 64/65/66. I sorta view a 66 like a 69-70 Eagle where 70s seem to be just give to X %.

"Buy the coin, not the label", they say.

For my set, its eye appeal as my number 1 criteria. Second is pricing is in line with the market. Third is can I afford it anyways. If I get lucky and those line up, I am thrilled to abopt.

This would be a good topic to share a couple examples showing the comparison between a couple. Show two examples, with good pics, of the same grade you feel are different, otherwise it's just speculation as to why they revived the grades they did.

Collects82 hit the major nail on the head. Strike issues and die conditions are the biggest factors. Take a MS, weakly struck, LDS coin for example. Details will be mushy, and high points will be riddled with planchet marks where metal did not fill the die. At first glance it will appear to be a slider or a low MS at best. Understanding the series is key in examples like this. It's a tough series to grade.

Well struck coins are relatively "easy" to grade bc you have a near complete or almost complete coin, showing full devices and details as intended. Grading based on wear and contact marks is a little less subjective. It's the majority of this series that's tough with weak strikes and die issues.

IMO, TPG's have been all over the map with this series. Sometimes they'll give a bump for a strong strike when it's deserved, other times not. MS66 examples of weakly struck, mushy, VLDS that shouldn't make it past MS65. Grading is subjective, people make mistakes. Ultimately as Collects82 said, buy the coin, not.

It's a fun and sometimes frustrating series! If finding well struck, good eye appeal examples was easy, my registry set would be done!!!

Uploading pictures was my first thought. I need to figure out the picture size and formatting here first...

Hi guys,

Sorry for the delay. I'm slowly starting to figure out the picture formatting on this board.

Here is an example. They are different dates. The coin on the right has a much weaker strike and not much if any wear aside from some light surface scratches/marks. These are both graded MS65. Since Strike is one of the main components of grading I would assume due to the lack of detail it would grade lower or perhaps the one on the left is under graded? Either way there seems to be a discrepancy as to my eyes this isn't that close. What am I missing here?

Thanks

Adam says it well.

I agree with @Adam_E. The year and mint location are both critical. 1925 is notorious for poorly struck Buffalos, especially in Denver and SF, and you really can't compare those coins with nickels from the late 1930's. Without seeing the reverses, both of those coins seem reasonably graded for the years.

Ok so what I'm getting is that in some instances TPG's do show some leniency when grading MS examples of specific dates that are known to be poorly struck

You can put it that way, sure. The opposite is true as well though. The grade of a poorly struck coin that comes from a typically strong year will be inhibited. I would think of it as a grading curve.

This also applies to other strike and die characteristics like luster and Die Deterioration.