| Author |
 Replies: 11 / Views: 1,595 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
3234 Posts |
Here is the 1892 cent in need of an ~ valuation. Past pics showed it in full sun and it was washed out a bit,..and I was missing info that I now have from the 2011 Charlton varieties pages. (to some extent) What's also interesting about this coin is that in hand viewing shows reflective surfaces on the Obverse and an almost cameo affect on it. The Reverse has a fine satin smooth and very flat look to it. This is with a natural softer light and shows the full "D"in Canada and full "N" in Regina. I've just received the 2011 Charlton(page 335) and saw that it lists a value of 3x of the regular OC2 price at MS 60. Mine has a repunched 9 which strangely is not even shown here as a known variety for the 1892. Trends shows the regular 1892 OC2 MS 64 at ~ $1800. So any opinions as to what this coins valuation should be listed at?..if there ever was 'to be' a listing... All comments appreciated.. Would bosox or SPP or Bill or anyone else have more info on this rarer variety?      Edited by DEVLEC
06/01/2013 2:00 pm
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2366 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1700 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
3234 Posts |
Thanks for that wonderful link to the best Lg Cents that we will probably ever see. So much hard work and dedication there.
Rob's 1892 also shows the full D and N,..but I don't see the repunched or recut 9 ...as mine shows.
I would have thought that the varieties pages at the end of the 2011 Charlton would have shown this altered 9 variety of the 1892 cent.
|
|
New Member
Canada
32 Posts |
i want that cent : ) very very nice
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1354 Posts |
I think the reason you have an intact N is that it's an obverse 4 not an obverse 2
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
3234 Posts |
Coin Chick...You've shaken the foundations of learning here.........  Could ICCS have gotten it wrong? When I went to look at the link and then look at Rob's 1892 OC2..it also has an intact D and N,..but I can't see a repunched 9 on his. It might be there but I can't see it. Thanks for the input and getting me to take a long look...but I'm still not sure. We do have experts around here that have more ways of telling 'which it is' ...than by looking at the crown, hair and eye details alone. Mine seems to have a big earring on the earlobe that doesn't show in the Charlton either (maybe just a die irregularity..?) This added pic is clearer but somewhat sun bleached and it doesn't show the reflective fields in the Obverse...   |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
3234 Posts |
bosox calls this the O2AA-A6 die which is OBV 4 and not 2 and married to RIS-A4.
I found it easy to mix up the label with the other #'s and letters here. Hmmm ...ICCS OBV 2 on the grading?
Edited by DEVLEC
06/01/2013 9:32 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1354 Posts |
The reverse in your photo was married to 1 obv 3 and 2 obv 4 dies. And the repunched 9 is well known, and never on an obv 2.. I think it has been pointed out before that even the TPG's can make mistakes. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1354 Posts |
As well Rob(bosox) has a new book out that covers the 90 and 92 dates.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1352 Posts |
Same coin that I commented upon in the other thread. ICCS got it wrong. It is obverse C4. Not the first time I have seen an obverse C4 in an ICCS holder labeled obverse C2.
http://www.victoriancent.com2011 & 2025 Fred Bowman Award Winner, 2020 J. Douglas Ferguson Award Winner, & 2022 Paul Fiocca Award Winner. Life Member of RCNA.
Edited by bosox
06/02/2013 04:03 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
3234 Posts |
Thanks again to Coin Chick and bosox for clearing up this coin,... and setting me straight(again).
I couldn't get it clear in my head. I saw OC2 and read OBV 2 in my head.
I misread Rob's previous call of OBV 4 instead of 2 in the previous post. I just keep thinking (while looking at that label) that it was an OBV 2.
|
| |
Replies: 11 / Views: 1,595 |
|
Posted 05/31/2013 11:23 pm
