| Author |
 Replies: 17 / Views: 2,077 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1536 Posts |
 I was going to list this on ebay but it just wigs me out this looks like an 1879. I am just going to keep it.
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
107 Posts |
From the picture it looks like a 1879
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
36745 Posts |
I did a blow up of your photo but still can't tell for sure. Could you add a couple more photos at different angles to see what might pop up.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
442 Posts |
I don't think it's 1870 because the last digit has a curve to it so it is either a 1878 or 1879 my guess is 1879 because 1878 was only proofs
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
1879 would be....rather a win for you.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1721 Posts |
In my opinion the Top of the last digit is too big to be an 8. Can you explain to me/us how you got this? Was it sold as an 1870?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1536 Posts |
I bought a lot of 200 V nickels where only a sample was pictured. The seller said she did not search the nickels for dates and obviously that would be the case since she never noticed it mixed in. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1536 Posts |
Here is another pic, higher resolution and larger.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1536 Posts |
I think the "0" I am seeing in picture 2 is kind of small don't you think?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1536 Posts |
I didn't ask the seller before I bought the lot. I asked her after she sent them just out of curiosity. I figured for 28 cents a piece, I would have expected it. I know the local PM dealer sells them mostly VG for 55 cents a piece bulk price where many have most of liberty.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
1028 Posts |
You know, I actually don't think it's an 1879. The date on the 1870 had the last digit angle up more than the 1879, which is something I think I'm seeing here. The inside loop on this coin also looks too large to be from an 1879. I'm far from positive, but I would not purchase this coin as an 1879 even if the seller told me it was.
I don't think I'd list this piece. I don't see enough evidence here to justify marketing of an 1879. If you call it an 1870, there is no way this thing will sell for anything worthwhile. It is probably a fair, with an unreadable date and it looks like it may have even been cleaned to boot. As an 1870, it's unfortunately a cull.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1411 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1536 Posts |
What about vinegar? Doesn't that also help raise the date?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1536 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1536 Posts |
Quote:
You know, I actually don't think it's an 1879. The date on the 1870 had the last digit angle up more than the 1879, which is something I think I'm seeing here. The inside loop on this coin also looks too large to be from an 1879. I'm far from positive, but I would not purchase this coin as an 1879 even if the seller told me it was.
I don't think I'd list this piece. I don't see enough evidence here to justify marketing of an 1879. If you call it an 1870, there is no way this thing will sell for anything worthwhile. It is probably a fair, with an unreadable date and it looks like it may have even been cleaned to boot. As an 1870, it's unfortunately a cull. Absolutely, I would not list this on ebay. I wouldn't take a chance that it is an actual 1879 and have it go for a few dollars then get wigged and send someone a cancel transaction because I had second thoughts (of course I can end the auction early too if I change my mind before 24 hours ending). I would take it to a show. I was actually going to go to a show to have it check it out. That nic-a-date sounds like a plan. Maybe they have it there. |
|
Pillar of the Community
1028 Posts |
I do imagine that nic-a-date would bring the date out on this coin. It would also destroy most of the value that an 1879 in this condition had to begin with, which would have only been so much. I've never seen an 1879 with chemically altered details sold before and I've only seen a handful of chemically altered Shield nickels sold period. If it were an 1879 and it was given a more advanced and full restoration, you might get some decent results out of it. Contact weerdsteev about that. I am personally about 80/20 confident it's an 1870 so it may be a moot point. If enough dealers at a coin show tell you it's an 1879, you could also send it to TPG to get it slabbed. I'm not sure if this coin would even crack 100 with the slab in this condition and you'd lose a chunk of money sending it in, but you'd make something. |
| |
Replies: 17 / Views: 2,077 |
Posted 12/11/2012 1:26 pm
