| Author |
 Replies: 10 / Views: 1,620 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
160 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
87 Posts |
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
3039 Posts |
Definately LD. Boy, NGC missed the boat here unless it is a fake slab from you know where.  no bids. Looks like eBayers were smart on this one(for a change.) Edited by numismo
01/16/2012 4:17 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
Well, that's odd...it says "small date" on the slab, but I don't think it is... I could post Coop's excellent pic, but I thought I'd compare one of my small dates to this coin. The curl of the 9 is tell-tale, as are the shape of the 7 and 0. But I'll wait for the experts to confirm.   |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4897 Posts |
Edited by amida17
01/16/2012 5:14 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
67 Posts |
I keep all my 1970 s just because I really have a hard time telling the difference ---which probably just means they are all large date LOL
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
597 Posts |
its not the same coin in the cert verify
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
Good research there, reupman--definitely a different coin, the reverse makes that easy. Yeah...that proof doesn't look like a SD either. Scammer!  |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
3039 Posts |
amida17-that looks like another rip off. What's going on?
|
|
Valued Member
United States
286 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
19957 Posts |
Hummmmm....both are large dates. Either NGC was sleeping or those are fake slabs. The toning on the second coin is only found on the 70-S large date proofs. I've NEVER seen a small date rainbow toned like that.
Lincoln Cent Lover!VERDI-CARE™ INVENTOR https://verdi.care/
|
| |
Replies: 10 / Views: 1,620 |
|
Posted 01/16/2012 4:15 pm
