| Author |
 Replies: 12 / Views: 350 |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
27480 Posts |
But most likely not. And it's so far gone... US 1 Cent 187X (?)    Inordinately fascinated by bits of metal with strange markings and figures
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
965 Posts |
Hard to tell from the pics and corrosion, does the "N" is one look like the shallow "N" found on 1877?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1354 Posts |
I see burnt toast. Keep on searching.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
27480 Posts |
It's so corroded that even with my 16X loupe under a strong light it's impossible to say. When I get a chance (maybe next week) I'll put it under the scope.
Inordinately fascinated by bits of metal with strange markings and figures
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
9758 Posts |
Lucky you can make out the first 2 #s, maybe try a bit of Verdi-Care.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
78936 Posts |
That's a rough looking coin.
Errers and Varietys.
|
|
Moderator
United States
195446 Posts |
Quote:
Hard to tell from the pics and corrosion, does the "N" is one look like the shallow "N" found on 1877? I do see it on this one.   |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6891 Posts |
fwiw, while hunting nickels, I have learned that harsh light and strong illumination are not necessarily helpful when examining faded coin features. Sometimes gentle axial light will bring up those sorts of details.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
153 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2692 Posts |
wow, that poor critter...  |
|
Moderator
United States
106631 Posts |
this one is all beat up, good luck on getting a full date.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3730 Posts |
That's a toughie. It's a Type 1 obverse, so at least we can rule out 1887 and later. The first photo makes the third digit look more like a "7" but the second photo makes it look more rounded, like a "6" or "8." The last digit does look a bit too thick for a "1," but the amount of damage and metal movement makes even that assumption iffy. This may take some time with Snow, trying to match any surviving markers with possible dates. I could see 1867 or 1871 or 1881 here, too. The "N" has me leaning more toward 1871, but the more I look at it, the more iffy that seems, too. Interesting mystery! |
|
New Member
United States
3 Posts |
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it cant be an 1877. In 1874, the date was modified to be much larger, then in 1876 it was again modified to be slightly smaller, but it was still significantly larger than the first. It's very hard to see on your coin but if you compare the shape of the 8s it looks much more like the small date. I'm almost certain the 3rd number is a 7, so I've atleast narrowed it down to 1870-73. I've added a picture for comparison, see what you think:  |
| |
Replies: 12 / Views: 350 |
|
Posted 09/20/2026 6:55 pm
