| Author |
 Replies: 11 / Views: 1,581 |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
18638 Posts |
A oouple things with this coin...first grade...second color...third surface originality, do you think it was dipped?...fourth whats up with the date, it looks a little strange, the numbers are fatter than I've seen.   Edited by panzaldi
07/21/2013 09:10 am
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
4944 Posts |
Hard to tell with these pictures.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Israel
2420 Posts |
Surfaces looks pitted, but it could very well be an artifact of the photo's compression.
All I can say is that grade is at least high AU, and that the color could be right for the grade.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
36558 Posts |
Might have been whizzed (surface hit with a high speed wire brush to create false mint luster on a circ coin). Photos are not good enough to tell for sure.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
16677 Posts |
This coin is throwing some red flags up for me diagnostically.
Do you have a weight?
swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
18638 Posts |
I don't own it yet so cant get a weight on it. I thought something didn't look right with the surfaces also. I think I'll pass on this one. Just not feeling it. The reverse looks right but not the obverse
|
|
Moderator
United States
16677 Posts |
I'm just concerned it's of Chinese origin.
Good call ;)
swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
9792 Posts |
This looks like a real one to me. I know the Chinese are really good at counterfeiting these days, but the only area that is giving me any issue with origianlity is the date which looks thicker than most 1863 coins, the 1 and the 8 are the most suspect, the rest of the coin matches up to denticle pointers, and the reverse shows nothing out of the ordinary. Surfaces are a tough call on this piece with the photos provided. The mouth is also a tad strange looking, the forehead on a real coin has a pronounced bump forward, and the cheeks look different on these earlier cent issues, pre 1865. The other flag would be the price, how much as this piece looks better than some MS65 I looked up online. It might be a great buy if the dealer would send it in to PCGS beforehand, or agree to let you do that and return it if it comes back less than a genuine piece or less than the grade sold at.
"Buy the Book Before You Buy the Coin" - Aaron R. Feldman - "And read it" - Me 2013! ANA Life Member #3288 in good standing since 1981, ANS, Early American Coppers Member (EAC), Colonial Coin Collectors Club member (C4), Conder Token Collector Club member (CTCC), Civil War Token Society (CWTS) member, Liberty Seated Collectors Club (LSCC) & Numismatic Bibliomania Society member (NBS), USMex, Member in good standing, 2¢ variety collector. See my want page: http://goccf.com/t/140440 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5854 Posts |
The photos are a little blurry. The coin looks genuine and based on the luster, which looks ok to me, appears to be MS. The obverse could have been struck with a worn die which could be why the surfaces look odd but without better photos it's hard to say.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
18638 Posts |
the gavel fell at $86 on this piece. I did not feel comfortable to bid on it. too many questions. I'd rather pass. thanks for everyones opinions. you all are invaluable.
whats funny is that when I look at everyone elses posts I dont have a problem discerning problems or for the most part garde, but when I'm looking for myself, I always question my judgement. I am, however, learning so much from everyone here, my grading skills and ability to see details I never was able to pick out before has increased exponentially. thanks all.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2757 Posts |
I don't like the file marks extending from the denticles under the date all the way to under the you in UNITED.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4989 Posts |
Beautiful coin looks MS-63 or so. I bet someone got a good deal on it !
|
| |
Replies: 11 / Views: 1,581 |
|
Posted 07/21/2013 09:09 am
