Update #4 - Completed Circulated Classic Silver Commemorative Type Set

@ commems - downgrades are a forever opportunity in pursuit of this rare set of coins.

The XF45 Roanoke Island was downgraded to a VF25 example - which remained in the set for a few years ... and now downgraded to this lovely G06 example.

The VF25 Roanoke Island has found a new home within the 'family' of passionate collectors ... and as such we all benefit from the rare appearance of another true lowball classic commemorative.

Great fun chasing this set of lovely, rare and often unique coins.

David

Having a debate with myself on how to characterize my newest truly worn classic commemorative ... asking for your valued input to help decide the key question of date authentication.

To be useful as a true lowball the coin must be uniquely identifiable ... and in the case of multiple date and/or mm issues attributable to a specific date and/or mm.

Add to the list of burdens ... original surfaces.

Problem statement - Is the following Columbian half dollar able to be specifically identified as either 1892 or 1893?

I have already checked the box of original surfaces ... and enjoy the color and overall visual balance of this lowball ... but what date is it?

189x Columbian Half Dollar - PO01 (Raw)



Enlargement of the date area ... best I can do with my point-and-shoot photography.



I hopeful that there are diagnostics relative to the top half of the final date digit the can distinguish between the '2' and '3' ... but am unaware of what they might be.

I've compared all my in-hand examples of both dates ...

Seeking any and all input from you.

David

I'm going to say that this is an 1892. The curve in appears to be more rounded than in a 3. The wear pattern on the reverse is very similar to my PO01 1893. My 3 is more faint than yours and you have to tilt it just right to see the 3. The obv is what may keep it from a PO01 depending on who looks at it. In my opinion it should be PO01.

I will be contrarian and say 1893. Look at what is showing of the top to of the last digit. Compare it to a known two and a known three. The bottom curve (showing; middle actual) appears to be to soon and too shallow for a two.

You are likely correct.

My issue was the angle and position of the middle curve. I just reviewed several 1892 and 1893 images, specifically looking for more worn examples. I now feel more confident with that part of the two wearing down to match David's image.

Good point. Now I am on the fence again.

Thanks to all for your valued input on this conundrum ... your thoughts and analysis have been readily given in the spirit of support - for which I am very appreciative.

Special thanks to commems for taking the time to create the two images ... very helpful information for the debate.

I am currently leaning towards 1892 ... and if sent to the wizards tomorrow (will not be) would select that on my PCGS submittal.

This date on this coin appears to be divisive amongst the true experts in the field ... I can only imagine how the PCGS wizards will react when challenged to grade one of these seldom seen lowballs.

G06?

It is quite possible that regardless on my 'choice' of dates ... the wizards will return this truly lovely lowball with the dreaded code *86* ... authenticity unverifiable.

I have alas had several of those results.

Thanks again for all your thoughts .... any more out there?

David