1858 Indian Head Cent - Fake Or Real?

I'd say its real, but could have been restored cleaned ect.

I'm certainly no expert, but doesn't the 8 at the end of the date look strange? Of the four digits in the date, why is it the one that is "fuzzy"?

Dont know but found this statment.

In 1858 mint director James Ross Snowden directed engraver James Barton Longacre to prepare cent designs which would replace the Flying Eagles as of January 1, 1959. The result was some 60-100 (12) piece sets of pattern cents. According to Rick Snow in his book The Flying Eagle and Indian cent Attribution guide, 2nd Edition c2001, the original 12 piece sets were all proof coins and comprised three obverses; the flying eagle with small letters, the small (skinny) eagle, and the Indian head with broad (rounded) bust point, which were combined with four different reverses; the oak wreath, oak wreath with ornamental shield, cereal (agricultural) wreath, and the five leaf laurel wreath. It is noted that Snow categorizes 49 different variations on the original 12 piece set which include narrow or pointed Indian busts, high leaf reverses, six laurel leaf reverses, undated specimens, broad planchets, and different metals of copper, nickel, and bronze. These additional coins all being of very low mintage.


AND FROM ANOTHER LOCATION:

Given the volume and variety of these patterns, 1858 may well have witnessed the striking of more different U.S. cents than any other year. And many, if not all, reached the public, or at least the collecting public since the Mint put them up for sale in sets of 12 different kinds.


FORGOT THIS STATMENT (DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS BUT FOUND IT)

The existence of multiple die varieties among certain pattern coins-and the Indian Head cents of 1858 are another example-would seem to indicate that such pieces were a "stock in trade" for Mint officials for a long time. Not noted on Mint record books, such pieces were probably made for private profit, an early day equivalent of Lesney "lunch box specials," or other delicacies made for collectors at off-times. Walter Breen, acting on a suggestion by Richard Snow, devised the term "Midnight Minters" to describe coiners who worked in secret.

Ok. I'll ask the question.

If only a few are known (or thought) to exist and there are a bunch of variations, how in the world can any TPG "authenticate" it? I guess someone has to, but .....

From what I've read in this thread so far, the most one could hope for would be a percentage of certainty?

The reverse is not the 1859 so it can't be an altered 1859 issue. The 1859 is the oak wreath and not the laurel wreath of the pattern.
The 208 is the same design as the 209 except a Cu-Ni as indicated.

As to why so inexpensive ( if real), there is much less demand and it is an "odd duck" being a pattern rather
than a regular issue like an 1877. It will be interesting to watch.

Jim

Only a handful of people collect patterns so demand is low for most of them- rarity does not always equal high value. I would bet that there are more than 2-3(still probably single or low double digits though), where did that figure come from?

And I do not really care what the seller guarantees- if he is careless enough to hold a potentially rare and expensive pattern coin in his fingers, heavily circulated or not, then IMO he loses any "expertise" he may have.

That's a great question, and one which I am sure someone can answer more accurately than I. It seems that once a coin gets listed as part of the series (I don't think the 1856 should EVER have been listed as part of the series, and I question the impartiality and judgment of those that placed it there), then the genie is out of the bottle. Once there's a space for it in a Whitman, then you can't complete the series unless you have that coin. It's circular logic, and it's WAY past time to remove the 1856 Flying Eagle cent from the list of 'coins' in the series. Since the FE wasn't approved for circulation until the 1857 issue, the 1856 is not a legit part of the series in my book.

Jefferyice, I stand corrected. I have to learn not to post so early in the morning. Thanks ,

Jim