1916 two feathers buffalo nickel

[Darojo22]

I recently purchased a 1916 buffalo nickel and noticed that the 3rd feather was about 80% missing. Does this qualify as a two feathers error? I have seen a few pictures on pcgs and noticed that a couple of them looked a bit similar to mine. Can u help?

[Paul]

I see quite a bit of the 3rd feather in your image

[Darojo22]

Thank you for the reply. I have a follow-up question if that's OK. Indeed there is a partial feather, but it is not there in its entirety. Understanding that it is not a complete feather, is it possible for a new designation or is it still considered a full feather? The amount of feather on the coin is about 25%. Thanks again!

[Paul]

What you are seeing is considered common die polishing.

The 1/2 feather, no feather, & so on, are just nicknames that were pushed through as rare collectibles, .....unfortunately the masses were sucked in.

Remember… MARKETING

[Darojo22]

Thank you. Have a great day

[Earle42]

I agree with Paul. It was all a marketing gimmick and the grading companies use it to make money off of people. Rather than educate the hobbyists that die polishing is a common event and letting people know they do not have a mint error, the grading companies saw potential for making money with a dreamed up "cute" nickname people would remember.

[Darojo22]

So wouldn't over zealous die polishing be considered a mint error?

[Darojo22]

Nevermind. I just re-read the last text. Thanks again for clarification.

[Earle42]

Just so you know: Die polishing is done to extend the life of the dies. Sometimes the dies hit one another without a coin planchet between them. So the design of the OBV is impressed onto the REV die and vice versa. Any coin made from those dies then will have remnants on both sides that do not beling there. So a mint worker will polish the areas: Which is just a nice way of saying they use a gritty compound to grind/sand down and remove surface material to the depth of the unwanted impressions.

A collectable mint error, in the other hand, is usually something like there the image of the coin appears doubled on the die itself so all coins made with that die are from a doubled die and have doubled image.

Being a business, grading companies are more than happy to make up categories to use on labels to drum up more business by having more paying customers submitting coins to be slabbed.

If you want a real eye opener, read the essay in my signature. You will likely come away with a very different perspective about the grading companies (all linked throughout to PCGS website data).

[Darojo22]

Great essay! Very informative. If a computer program could absolutely be perfected to grade coins I'd be all in. It may come, but the questions are when and how long before it becomes totally accepted. Yes, the current system is flawed but it's what we've got. There's not much we can do. I don't believe it is malicious in its intent. Simply a byproduct of the imperfect human nature! As a hobbyist, strictly in it for the beauty of a coin, and all of its intangibles, grading shouldn't matter. But as a collector/ investor, I'm always looking to the potential of raw coin. Will it straight grade? Will it come back details, cleaned, etc.? So I am depending on those graders no matter how flawed they are. Will I always agree with their assessment? No, but I use each coin as a learning device to continue my journey... thank you for your time!!

[Earle42]

All of the companies had a computer and laser scanning system they developed in the 90s for grading coins. They marketed the idea as a more accurate system since it eliminated human error in the grading process which they said made human grading a lesser system.

The computer grading system did, assign the same grade to a coin when re-evaluated...unlike human graders.

So what happens when coins only get one grade every time? The large profits from people cracking out and re-slabbing are lost. So while every other company in existence was trying their best to incorporate computers, the coin grading companies claimed that since people did not trust computers (somewhat true at the time - this was before a lot of home computers), they would go back to the human grading system (the same one they had called insufficient and less accurate).

Why would they do this? Unlike the human system meaning there is a very profitable crack out and re-slabbing game played, the computer system eliminated these profits. Was this the real reason they abandoned the laser and computer system? While that is only a THEORY, note that after people saw computers as essential, the companies still are not using anything verifiable to grade coins. It's good business not to for sure. They are totally unaccountable to any scientific standard and rake in the profits.

I used a machine in the late 90s that would measure a part made by a plastics machine down to the nanometer. We evaluated parts using a standard, defined the points to check, saved the program, and then could put a similar part on the stage and the machine took over to "grade the part."

The modern iPhone with its infra red, 30,000 points instantaneous data point collection for facial recognition is more than able to handle the kind of analysis needed to grade a coin. But the profits would not be there for the companies with no re-slabbing. And certainly if an app was made (and I don't see why it cannot be made except for understanding how to program the iPhone), the companies would really be up a creek.

The companies are not evil, they are businesses that exist (like normal) to make a profit.

[Daniel]

I've been told by more than one former grader that part of the reason was the resubmit profits, it's much larger among bulk submission dealers than people think.

[Darojo22]

Well, I have a better understanding of A.I vs human grading, and now see why you are in favor of A.I. Thank you all. Have a great memorial day!