| Author |
 Replies: 10 / Views: 1,335 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3453 Posts |
Edited by CoinsKelly
10/29/2013 09:04 am
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1903 Posts |
By my eye...
Genuine...and was dug up, probably a metal detector find. Was well worn before it found its way into the ground.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2335 Posts |
Hard to tell on one with so little detail. I'm going to go with genuine & corroded.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
3453 Posts |
And this is why I post here! I am still not sure of it but your observations are interesting.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3234 Posts |
No, doesn't look like a fake. But not so sure it's an '83 either. Could it be a '68?
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
36741 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8137 Posts |
It could be. More detail is needed to know for sure.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3234 Posts |
I think the point is that this coin has virtually no numismatic value. Might be more fun to spend than hold onto.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5826 Posts |
There would be a lot of look if I was to give 3 cents coin to the cashier!
But I agree, it's only worth what one willing to pay.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
I think it is genuine, and I think it is a 1868. It ts DEFINITELY not an 1883. The date logotype was much wider in 1883, almost enough room for another digit between each of the digits in the date. The digits were larger with the 1 close to the point of the bust and the 3 almost under the lowest wave of the hair.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3453 Posts |
Thanks for the input - one day I hope my counterfeit identification by pictures detection skills improve.  EDIT: Looking closely I am inclined to think the second "8" really is a 6. Edited by CoinsKelly
10/29/2013 3:33 pm
|
| |
Replies: 10 / Views: 1,335 |
|
Posted 10/29/2013 08:34 am
