1876 Indian Head Cent

Here is another picture. As I stated I have posted pictures of other old coins that had off dates thinking it was an error. People said that this was common back then since minting was not an exact science.

Hmm...I should've been more careful looking at the date, because now that I do...some things just don't add up, such as the circular loops inside the "8", as well as the shape of the "6". I'm usually careful when buying IHCs for myself and others, but it looks like the fakes are getting more plentiful. I doubt the coin's authenticity.

Here is a bigger date. I know that people often pick out fakes on the forum and I am sure this diagnosis is often incorrect since detecting this takes a considerable amount of skill. Just like cleaning detection. I simply see a strange conflict. Many people claim this coin has condition issues but now your saying it is fake. Why fake a "problem coin" worth $20? There simply has to be another explanation. As I stated, you can not judge one coin from another since minting was not exact back then. I am looking at other 1876 and am seeing slight variation. It could just be wear that is causing this date to look weird. There is obvious ware on the stem of the six and a dent on the 8.

Well...I gave it a details grade because I didn't look close enough. I specialize in date varieties (such as overdates) and I should have looked closer--I guess I was lazy. Using your new picture, I dropped in a date from a certified 1876 for comparison. Honestly, I find problems with every digit--and there is only one date style for 1876. Just my opinion--show it to somebody who specializes in IHCs.




Consider that once you have tooled the dies--you can strike pieces of bronze worth a few cents to easily sell for 100X that--even with simulated wear.

As for the 1876 IHC linked above--it's in AG condition at best, which complicates a direct comparison. Still, the date looks more like the certified exampleâ€"to me.
As I said--it's just my opinion--and perhaps that's why I was lazy to begin with--so I don't have to sound conclusive? And we won't change what the coin is by debating things anyway--get another opinion than mine.

For most counterfeiters, the main goal is to make money and to do so, one must be able to pass it off to someone else. Problem coins are much more difficult to authenticate and it is not uncommon for a forger to clean, polish, artificially wear or tone, whiz, etc a coin if it means a lower probability of detection even at the sacrifice of price. Take for example a coin whose Philadelphia counterpart is significantly more valuable than ones from a branch mint. If the mintmark were to be removed from a coin with a natural surface, that area would stick out like a sore thumb and detection would be easy. Now if it was cleaned, the alteration would blend in with the surround surface much more easily.



People have faked coins for much less than $20. The Henning nickels are a great example, the British one pound coins are another, and I think even SteveCaruso had posted a fake golden dollar(I think it was a sacagawea). Even with average circulated common date Morgan dollars hovering at $20 something, the Chinese still turn a nice profit at that price. There are probably many more examples but these were the ones that I thought of first. It seems to me that nowadays counterfeits are more inclined to fake lower value and semi key dates instead of keys because they get less scrutiny and the diagnostics are less well known and/or to many for most to remember. Many here on the forum could tell the diagnostics of a business strike 1877 Indian cent but I think few could rattle off all the diagnostics of an Indian cent from the late 1860's to early 1870's. A genuine 1876 with EF details is still probably worth in the neighborhood of $80.

It was date style that first raised my suspicions. Looking at the last date comparison by DVCcollector, it is the 8 stands out the most to me. The middle part of the 8, in between the two ovals, is narrow in the genuine example while on your example it is much wider. The one from ebay has the same style date as the genuine coin even though it has seen much more circulation. With only one date style, the coin has to considered suspicious if it doesn't match that of genuine examples. The lump of metal above the T in Liberty that I had previously mentioned seems to show up in some photos and not others so that could just be an artifact of the photography.

quickest and surest way to tell it is real or fake: take it to a jeweler and ask them to weigh it.

Looks like another piece that was imported from Asia.