Is This A 1970 S Small Date?

This is an ebay coin (no I didn't bid) and I'm starting to suspect the 9 was tooled
and then the coin was artificially toned to cover the work
Just an opinion and a guess.

Upstate, you could be right. First, I was tripped up by that 9, but other details didn't add up--such as the bottom of the 7 to the 0, the shape of the 0, and lastly the 9 appeared LD.

From the cropped pic of the date near the beginning, it's looks pretty plain to me that the nine is above the 7, even taking into account the pic is tilted a little. I also agree that the "Liberty" itself is not the best indicator, but, for it to be a small date, it must not be bold. A large date can have a mushy "liberty," too, but this coin does not appear to have one, it looks pretty bold to me. Thus, it must be a large date.

This is definitely NOT a small date cent, and I agree with the few who have said something was done to make this coin look deceptively like a small date. Problem is, they forgot to chop the bottom of the 7 off. It drops way too far below the level of the 1 and 0 for the proper diagnostics of a small date to be present.

A couple of other things:

1. A weak LIBERTY versus strong LIBERTY - weak letters can be seen on both - not a good diagnostic. But the small date never has a very bold, strong LIBERTY.

2. There is no such thing as close or not close. There were exactly two designs used. It either is a small date or it isn't, and something on the coin is going to be telling - one way or the other.

On this coin - like I said - the bottom of the 7 is not short enough for a small date. The LIBERTY is too strong for a small date. While the basic shape of the inside curl of the 9 is somewhat right, its length is too short, showing it has been played with. Basically, it doesn't have the characteristic of either a small or large date because it's just "not right." The lack of the crease on the 7 is - once again - deceptive playing. There is obvious damage they couldn't completely cover up on the 7. The top of the zero is what kind of got me, but there's an area above the digit that shows lack of "toning" - another area they played with.

Basically, they "almost" got this one right. If they had chopped the bottom off the 7 I would have had to see the coin in hand to tell which it was, and that's not normal for me. I can usually spot large from small date on these at a simple glance. I've been dealing with them for years, and have cherried over a hundred small date coins and sets. So....kudos to the deceptor. Took me a little while to sort this one out.

That is my #1 diagnostic, when I look at these, that stands-out like a sore thumb. I takes me about 3 seconds to decide after seeing that and the overall look of the date. On a large date the bottom of that 7 is really, really long.

BUT what if there really is a middle dated one? Not small, not large.

I have to be honest, I actually struggled with this one.

At first I thought it *might* be, but something just wasn't right. After reading Chuck's comments, I don't feel so bad now.

Scooby,I agree...as you can see by my first post. Seeing good signs and bad signs has a way of tricking the mind of us amateurs.But I will say I would never have bought it based on what I could see.