| Author |
 Replies: 13 / Views: 1,403 |
|
|
Member
United States
917 Posts |
Hi , I'm wondering why anybody would alter an 1880 IHC to read 1830 ? The IHC did not come into being until 1859 so why alter or counterfeit one to read so early a date ? I'm of course assuming its been altered as it doesn't make sense , yet it doesn't really look altered.Any ideas out there ? Image:  c518_1.jpg11.15 KB Edited by wetglaswegian
02/08/2009 5:02 pm
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Spain
1361 Posts |
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23731 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Poland
3201 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2661 Posts |
I see 1889 with verdigris at the 9 o'clock position on the second 8, making to somewhat appear as a 3.
|
|
Member
 United States
917 Posts |
Ill have it soon and get better pictures , this other one is weirder as it apparantly says 1836 but I can almost see a 7 after the 6 My initial thought is its 1889 and 1886 but they do seem to have been purposely altered? Image: c9d2_1.jpg12.89 KB |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5318 Posts |
Your 1886 is the type II obverse, which is the scarcer of the two that year.
I'm not sure about the marks...it could just be damage.
|
|
Member
United States
917 Posts |
Hi kurt , I got the "gold" coin ok , thank you.I guess its a keeper if only to remind me there are fakes out there.These are curious as they were described as dates being 1830's , obviously that cant be right and it has to be 1880's but for cost of a stamp I thought they are worth a look. Interesting already that one is a scarcer version , this is my first venture into IHC.I would imagine ill have these coins this week and if they are worth photographing ill do so. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
The 1889 also shows the type II hub so it can't be from before 1886.
|
|
Member
United States
917 Posts |
Now we're talking , thats what I hoped to hear..although I dont know what a hub is yet , it gives me something to go on.
The person that owned these is of the opinion they are mistrikes and it is a 3 where the 8 should be , itll be interesting to see.Thanks guys
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
20753 Posts |
AHHH, yes it is not an 1830 but if it was, HMMMM. Sort of like finding a 1908 Lincoln Cent. Or a 1914 Roosevelt dime. Very, very rare you know.  |
|
Member
United States
917 Posts |
Carl , I beleive we are all aware its an 8 , point is the previous owner tends to think its a 3 , possibly mistruck.I like to bring such curios here for discussion.
I myself indicated I thought it altered.Ill keep the curios to myself in future , see ya
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
By the way, all of the Indian Head cents had the date applied to the die using a four digit logotype punch which would mean that they would have had to make an 1830 or whatever punch to make the die. (In 1830 the dates were punched into the die with individual numeral punches, so there would not be an old 1830 punch laying around.) There is no way such a punch would be made in the 1880's. |
|
New Member
United States
3 Posts |
The only thing wrong with these coins is that they are worn and corroded.
|
| |
Replies: 13 / Views: 1,403 |
|
c518_1.jpg
Posted 02/08/2009 5:07 pm
c9d2_1.jpg
