| Author |
 Replies: 17 / Views: 2,884 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
That "1866" date is so dodgy  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
526 Posts |
As I do not collect these types of coins, what are the issues with this cent?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8518 Posts |
Quote:
As I do not collect these types of coins, what are the issues with this cent?
Yes, educate us. The date looks normal to me except that it's not worn. Oregon coin geek.....*** GO BEAVS ! ! ! ***
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Most obvious is that the fonts in the date are wrong. ebay coin  And here is a PCGS slabbed example.  Note the shape of the 1, on the genuine the top and bottom of the 8 are the same size, compare the size and shape of the 6's, especially the inside of the upper curl of the 6. Edited by Conder101
08/16/2012 09:43 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3283 Posts |
Nice work Conder,
I was going to say, just compare the dates to a known, real coin.
As a matter of fact I would suggest to anyone, whenever you are buying a coin of modest (or better) value,
or coins known to be counterfeited, just google the coin and view images of slabbed examples.
Checking the fonts, devices, and arrangement of the coins can be reassuring.
|
|
Locked
822 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
156 Posts |
On the counterfeit 1866, note how the centers of the head and torso on the 8 and the loops in the 6's are round. On all genuine Mint issue 1866 IHC, these features are oval in shape. The Chinese haven't quite mastered making correct date punches. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2602 Posts |
That is a really good counterfeit despite the date issues. And also not a date one would normally think would be counterfeited- it is not a key date, though higher grade specimens are valuable.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
The side-by-side images are very helpful.  Funny how the seller looked close enough to see those weak "4 diamonds", but does not scrutinize the wonky date?  The vague grading is interesting too--due to the coin showing little wear, but also no luster/cartwheel. Edited by DVCollector
08/16/2012 12:52 pm
|
|
Locked
822 Posts |
I'm starting to get delayed responses now to reports from Judith. Maybe she was on vacation or they were in meetings or something. It does appear they are catching up now though.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
36841 Posts |
All the details on the counterfeit are mushy. Look at the LIBERTY on the head band.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1374 Posts |
Thanks Conder and scubu!! Yes, the date is a dead give away. Also, like DV mentioned it isn't really 4 diamonds. mycob - fantastic point, high grade 1866's are very hard to come across and is discussed in the Snow guide. Most telling is that the N in ONE is not shallow. The shallow N reverse was used 1862-1872, 1877. The Flat N was retired in 1864. Below is a comparison of the counterfeit vs a certified example. Note the difference in the N in ONE between the coins... not to mention the typeface is not correct. Also, note how mushy the coin looks despite the lack of circulation wear. On the obverse, the stem in the second feather from the bottom is not even there. ebay finally responded to my report and said that they will review the coin. If it is deemed to be a counterfeit, they said they would remove it. ebay has become a viable market for counterfeit coins, be careful.  Edited by Drsandman2
08/16/2012 11:41 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1374 Posts |
Finally! It is gone, but I contacted the seller and sent him a link to this thread. Maybe we should create a sticky thread that discusses how to identify fake IHCs.
|
|
Forum Dad
 United States
24173 Posts |
That would leave the door open to have to do a sticky on all coins. If someone wants to come up with a guide though, I will post it on the site in the coinfacts section and we can just refer to it when needed.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
Quote:
Most telling is that the N in ONE is not shallow. I should have picked up on that!  |
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 17 / Views: 2,884 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 08/16/2012 08:36 am
