| Author |
Replies: 11 / Views: 305 |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
27479 Posts |
But most likely not. And it's so far gone... US 1 Cent 187X (?)    Inordinately fascinated by bits of metal with strange markings and figures
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
965 Posts |
Hard to tell from the pics and corrosion, does the "N" is one look like the shallow "N" found on 1877?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1353 Posts |
I see burnt toast. Keep on searching.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
  United States
27479 Posts |
It's so corroded that even with my 16X loupe under a strong light it's impossible to say. When I get a chance (maybe next week) I'll put it under the scope.
Inordinately fascinated by bits of metal with strange markings and figures
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
9745 Posts |
Lucky you can make out the first 2 #s, maybe try a bit of Verdi-Care.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
78889 Posts |
That's a rough looking coin.
Errers and Varietys.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
195387 Posts |
Quote: Hard to tell from the pics and corrosion, does the "N" is one look like the shallow "N" found on 1877? I do see it on this one. 
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6889 Posts |
fwiw, while hunting nickels, I have learned that harsh light and strong illumination are not necessarily helpful when examining faded coin features. Sometimes gentle axial light will bring up those sorts of details.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
153 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2691 Posts |
wow, that poor critter... 
|
|
Moderator
 United States
106488 Posts |
this one is all beat up, good luck on getting a full date.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3730 Posts |
That's a toughie. It's a Type 1 obverse, so at least we can rule out 1887 and later. The first photo makes the third digit look more like a "7" but the second photo makes it look more rounded, like a "6" or "8." The last digit does look a bit too thick for a "1," but the amount of damage and metal movement makes even that assumption iffy. This may take some time with Snow, trying to match any surviving markers with possible dates. I could see 1867 or 1871 or 1881 here, too. The "N" has me leaning more toward 1871, but the more I look at it, the more iffy that seems, too. Interesting mystery! 
|
| |
Replies: 11 / Views: 305 |
|