Buffalo_Pete

On 6/13/2023 at 7:47 PM, VKurtB said:

The 1916 has its own idiosyncrasy. It is the most cockeyed date ever. Each digit, left to right, is bigger than the last. The 6 is stinking HUGE. 

That was one of the many ways the Mint tried to solve the rapid date wear.  They never did.  Strengthening the last 2 numbers in the date was kinda like throwing in the towel.  A compromise.  That's why today we see so many partial date Buffs.

The subject coin is well struck, but not FULLY struck.  It lacks most in the hide detail at the bottom near the leg.  Because of the "better" than average strike though, I like it at MS-64.

Pete

It has tohe did those. be Eliasberg unless, yes, world coins come up.  Don't know if he did those.

Pete

Strike looks good to me, Mark.  UMM.....I don't know, and it's very difficult to judge by pics...............I'm not NEAR an expert......just a soldier in the Army.

The coin has that "look" milky or whatever, to me.

Observationally, to me, anyway.

Pete

Page 190. "The Complete Guide to Buffalo Nickels" Third Edition by David Lange states:

"Unless they've been dipped, most 1936 proof nickels show some degree of toning.  This usually takes the form of a hazy or milky film on both sides.  Not especially attractive, it is still valued as a mark of "originality"."

Don't do anything to it!  That "milky" finish shows the originality of the coin.

Pete

I agree, Roger.  Breen was a person who really didn't care what others thought about him.  It became apparent from his appearances at major events in the Hobby.  The way he dressed, acted, and generally came across to others did not make him any friends.

I can see the skepticism from learned individuals in this profession as being quite warranted.  Back over ten or more years ago, I defended his right to dress or be the way he was. (Hobby wise, not his personal life).  Matter of fact, I knew nothing back then of his lifestyle outside the Hobby.

Now, a little more informed and less quick to shoot my mouth off, I see the reasons for criticism.

There is some good stuff in his book.  The picture of the 1922 no D was always one of my favorites. 

I still like the book as a reference.......it is good reading......but should be taken as a grain of salt and reviewed according to what other learned individuals have commented on and backed up with facts.

Pete