| Author |
 Replies: 16 / Views: 3,687 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1081 Posts |
It looks like there might be something there, but I will need clearer pics before I can offer my opinion.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
If you angle the coin slightly, you might be able to get the date in focus like the top of the coin. I'd prefer a sharper picture of the date before I comment, but from what I see--something is "off" with the date. Even at this focus, the shape of the digits just aren't right. Compare the interior shape of the 9 and the serifs on the 4 to a certified coin (top).   Edited by DVCollector
02/17/2013 4:50 pm
|
|
New Member
 United States
22 Posts |
sorry about the picture quality. I think these two area bit better. Thanks for your input.   |
|
Moderator
 United States
16679 Posts |
Why does his date look "off" to me? I'm doubting the coins authenticity.
swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
Despite their attempt to look like a repunched date in the "1", this coin is a forgery--I'm 100% sure. There was only one style of date punch for 1894, and the date details on your coin just don't match. The forgers probably transferred details from a genuine IHC, leaving some areas weak and lumpy, such as the denticles and diamonds on the ribbon. They later added the date, probably to produce forgeries for several dates. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news--I would try to get a refund. Edited by DVCollector
02/17/2013 5:38 pm
|
|
Moderator
United States
16679 Posts |
My first thought was Chinese. They are starting to counterfeit varieties as well. Getting scary.
swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
Valued Member
United States
442 Posts |
Wow that is a great fake everything looks ok but the date is way off
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
Yeah--they're trying to look "authentic", but not quite! It's hard to fake an RPD/overdate using different production techniques. Here's an attempt at a 1869/9 that doesn't quite fly:  But my favorite of all may be this "1888/7"  Another case where Liberty looks almost believable, but the date does not. Anyway, this is no consolation to the buyer--so I hope they can return this coin.   Edited by DVCollector
02/17/2013 8:01 pm
|
|
New Member
United States
22 Posts |
thanks for taking the time to look at the coin. I am happy to find out so soon after I bought it. I did not buy it as an overdate but I don't want a tooled coin.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
It's not even tooled--the whole thing is a fake. The lumpy denticles give it away.
|
|
Moderator
United States
16679 Posts |
Quote:
I am happy to find out so soon after I bought it. I did not buy it as an overdate but I don't want a tooled coin.
Your coin is not authentic. It's worthless. Try to get your money back. swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
9792 Posts |
Great eye Vermontensium! I never thought about a fake, until I really looked at the 9 it was way off kilter looking and the 4's serifs are also not correct, the 1 and 8 are pretty close.
"Buy the Book Before You Buy the Coin" - Aaron R. Feldman - "And read it" - Me 2013! ANA Life Member #3288 in good standing since 1981, ANS, Early American Coppers Member (EAC), Colonial Coin Collectors Club member (C4), Conder Token Collector Club member (CTCC), Civil War Token Society (CWTS) member, Liberty Seated Collectors Club (LSCC) & Numismatic Bibliomania Society member (NBS), USMex, Member in good standing, 2¢ variety collector. See my want page: http://goccf.com/t/140440 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8517 Posts |
Can you post a pic of the reverse ?
Oregon coin geek.....*** GO BEAVS ! ! ! ***
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1021 Posts |
This coin is without a doubt a Chinese counterfeit. Look above the first feather tip. There is a denticle sticking out into the field. This is seen on many counterfeit Indian Head cents. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1374 Posts |
Fake coin. Sorry, looks like someone dug up these old posts.
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 16 / Views: 3,687 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 02/17/2013 4:48 pm
