| Author |
 Replies: 37 / Views: 4,331 |
Page 3 of 3
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
3098 Posts |
Under 10x magnification I don't see any lump on the top of the second T in STATES, but, as I said, I'm no expert in Indian Head cents. I'll let the group know what my local dealer thinks about the coin. I am well aware of the danger of fakes. Just yesterday I discovered that an ancient Roman bronze of Constantine I that had been sitting in my collection for three years was a very clever fake. Paul Bulgerin
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3098 Posts |
 I've taken a close up photo of the coin. From this angle you can see what the T in STATES looks like. What appears to be the blob in the ebay photo is, I believe, a bit of toning. I certainly appreciate any expertise on this. Thank You. (I hope my photo has properly uploaded.) Paul Bulgerin
|
|
Forum Dad
 United States
24186 Posts |
I'm going by the image in the original post, it's there plain as day...  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
10045 Posts |
It's great the seller dropped by an asked the forums opinion on his coin--welcome!  As someone who specializes in how coins are dated (I collect overdates) I'll can state with some certainty that the date on this coin is diagnostic as not coming from the US mint in 1901. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3098 Posts |
  Here are a couple of more photos of the coin at different lighting so list members can check out the second T in STATES. As I said, I'll have my local coin dealer check out the diagnostics on the coin. He's a pretty knowledgeable guy. I appreciate the insights of the group's members. Paul Bulgerin
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3098 Posts |
 One more photo for people to scrutinze: This is the auction photo from the lot I bought on ebay earlier in December that included the 1901 Indian Head cent in question. It's a pretty decent photo of the coin. Paul Bulgerin
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
I think the last picture above ^^^ clearly shows the date punch difference between this 1901 and two other IHCs from this period. Again, as the OP...I'm only discussing what I see on the coin. I'm not speculating about the seller's intent--at all. I'm hardly the last word on IHCs--perhaps you could send it to Rick Snow to get his opinion?  Edited by DVCollector
12/30/2013 7:57 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3098 Posts |
I took the 1901 Indian Head cent to my local dealer today (Silver Spring Coin and Gem in Cedarburg, WI). He has over 35 years experience in the coin business. He examined the weighed the coin. The weight is correct. He told me that the coin has all the characteristics of a mint-struck coin. The die has been re-engraved and there is folded metal on the edge. He could see no evidence of any extra metal above the second T in STATES. I asked about submitting it for authentication but he said that the fees charged for a coin of this grade really don't make it worth the expense. Since it was removed from ebay as a suspected counterfeit I can't put it back on ebay unless it is authenticated by a third party, so this one is going in my collection. Paul Bulgerin
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8521 Posts |
Paul....The coin you're showing though isn't the one in the first post here. That one has the extra metal above the T .
Oregon coin geek.....*** GO BEAVS ! ! ! ***
Edited by 52Raymo
01/04/2014 1:02 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
Edited by DVCollector
01/04/2014 1:55 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3098 Posts |
I think it was the lighting. Both photos are of the same coin. The ebay photo was taken in natural sun light and that did cause the shadows. The other photos were taken with a natural light I use for coin photos. I think using sunlight was also the issue with the 1928 Lincoln that was also called into question. Paul Bulgerin
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3098 Posts |
DV Collector If you'd like to see the coin in person I'd be happy to send it to you for examination. Just contact me off list. Both photos are the same coin; the lighting is different. As I said in previous posts, the "lump" over the T in STATES in the ebay photo isn't there. I think it a toning spot looking like a lump in the photo. My local dealer said he didn't see anything there. I'd like to put this to rest. Let me know if you'd like to examine the coin. Paul Bulgerin
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
4849 Posts |
I agree with Paul. It IS the same coin. Compare the rim characteristics and the toning splotches above the "O" in the date. I don't think there is a lump above the T in states, it is all a lighting thing.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
Quote:
I'd like to put this to rest. Let me know if you'd like to examine the coin. Paul, I totally understand--and sometimes pictures are confusing. I think I've collected/sold enough IHCs to tell the real from a copy--and I can use my Snow books to help as well. I'll send you a note.  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
Update: Paul has sent me that coin, and I have posted an update here. |
|
Page 3 of 3
|
Replies: 37 / Views: 4,331 |
Page 3 of 3
|
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 12/29/2013 8:29 pm
Now that I look closer, I'm a little confused about that--the lump above the "T" is missing on the second picture and the dates are clearly different. It's easiest to see by comparing the baseline of the first "1" to the "9" (below). There is only one date punch used for 1901, snd overall the shapes of the design are different too. But perhaps this is a trick of the camera/lighting angles?
