| Author |
 Replies: 16 / Views: 2,377 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
2403 Posts |
Thanks Coconutjoe.  I always thought in order for a coin to be gradable the date had to be legible. Am I wrong on this? Edited by MontCollector
01/10/2018 03:53 am
|
|
Moderator
 United States
15521 Posts |
Quote:
in order for a coin to be gradable the date had to be legible You are correct. There is a condition lower than PO01 and this 2 cent piece has reached it .... it's known as basal state .... and as such does not qualify as PO01. Still an intriguing piece of USA coinage history.  Take a look at my other hobby ... http://www.jk-dk.art |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1609 Posts |
It's an eighteen sixty something. Can't tell the last digit but my guess would be 1865, 1866, or 1868.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Date doesn't have to be legible. but it does have to be identifiable. For example a 1794, 95, 96 or 97 liberty cap Half Cent usually has to have a readable date to grade Po-1, but a 1793 liberty cap Half Cent doesn't because it is the only one where Liberty faces left. You know the date even if it can't be read. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
That's as far gone as I've ever seen one.
|
|
Moderator
United States
189767 Posts |
Very nice! |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2403 Posts |
Thanks all!! Quote:
It's an eighteen sixty something. Can't tell the last digit but my guess would be 1865, 1866, or 1868. You got better eyes than I do...Just for the heck of it, here is a close-up of the date area.  |
|
Rest in Peace
10197 Posts |
Mont, population. 1864, and 1865 were many made with 1868 a runner up. I've seen mostly 65's, then 64's.
Now if you can tell the size of letters on the ribbon above the shield, that may indicate a 64....ya, what ribbon!
Edited by Crazyb0
01/10/2018 3:38 pm
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
17900 Posts |
That is a coin that did it's duty. It may be worn but it's due respect, nonetheless.
|
|
Moderator
United States
189767 Posts |
Quote:
That is a coin that did it's duty. It may be worn but it's due respect, nonetheless.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1609 Posts |
On second thought, I can only see the 18. After overlaying an image I cant figure what decade it is.
|
|
Moderator
United States
15521 Posts |
Quote:
Date doesn't have to be legible. but it does have to be identifiable. Fully concur ... My reply was not intended to be a lesson on criteria for certifying lowball coins ... simply suggested that for a newcomer to the topic the vast majority of true certifiable lowball need a verifiable date/mm ... single year type coins examples that can be certified even in basal state abound throughout the USA coinage history. 1921 high relief Peace dollar ... indeed. 1915-S Panama Pacific Half Dollar ... indeed. Your suggested 1793 Liberty Cap Half Cent ... indeed. Others? ... indeed These exceptions share the characteristic of being 1 year type coins with singular identifiable features even in basal state ... I do not know of any USA 2 cent piece that could meet this 'exception' criteria ... hence my original reply suggesting this is basal state and not PO01. David Take a look at my other hobby ... http://www.jk-dk.art |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2216 Posts |
I love coins that appear organically. It just walked into your life, not from the Internet, not from ebay, just found its way there. Nothing special numismatically, but a whole lot of mystery and intrigue as well as many stories to tell if it could talk. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5029 Posts |
when I hold my head just right I think I can see the lower part of a 5 on your close up. However, I am likely simply seeing something out of nothing = PareidoliaI like it none the less. Thanks for sharing.  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Quote:
I do not know of any USA 2 cent piece that could meet this 'exception' criteria . A 64 SM would. There are design characteristics that can still be seen even if the date is worn away that can allow it to be identified as a 64 SM. |
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 16 / Views: 2,377 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 01/10/2018 05:11 am
