| Author |
 Replies: 21 / Views: 3,588 |
|
New Member
United States
33 Posts |
       *** Moved by Staff to a more appropriate forum. ***
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2311 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1053 Posts |
|
|
Moderator
 United States
187702 Posts |
Very nice!  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8137 Posts |
nice it is even an O mint. my oldest (and only)seated dime is 1841 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1304 Posts |
If this is a 53-O, where are the arrows? I think this is an 1858-O.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
20753 Posts |
Quote:
If this is a 53-O, where are the arrows? I think this is an 1858-O. Good point. In 1853 both types were made. Type 2 had no arrows at date. Type 3 had arrows at date. However, there were no type 2, 1853 ones made with the O mint but the type 3, with arrows at date were made with the O mint. The date on this coin really does appear to be a 3 though. No apparent damage to the date either. If in fact this is a 1853 with no arrows at the date, might be a really valuable coin. I wonder just how good the records were back in 1853 as to what was made at the O mint. This may well be the only one if not a damaged 1858. ? |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1304 Posts |
I believe I see damage to the last digit, particularly in the upside down obverse photo. Closer images of the date would really be necessary, but I'm still thinking 58. Here is a comparison of the dates for a 53-O and a 58-O. The '5' seals the deal for me, the 5 in the OP's coin looks more like the 5 in the 58, than the 5 in the 53.   Edited by EFLargeCents
12/05/2013 12:12 pm
|
|
New Member
 United States
33 Posts |
I'm In The Process Of Taking More Pictures Still Looks Like A 1953 To Me At Least I'm Hoping It Is. Thanks
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1745 Posts |
I'm seeing 58, hopefully you can get a clear shot at it.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4337 Posts |
its an 1858 or the only known 1853-O w/out arr making it the only known one in existence and probably very valuable even in current condition. I say 1858 however. date is way too off to be an 1853
|
|
New Member
United States
33 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1304 Posts |
1858 no doubt in my mind.
|
|
New Member
United States
33 Posts |
In response to dssfreeworld "I say 1858 however. date is way too off to be an 1853"
I'm not sure I understand what exactly you mean by date is way to off to be an 1853. New collector could you explain Please and Thanks.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
96 Posts |
It is an 1858-O, It looks like it took a hit on the "8".
|
|
Moderator
United States
16677 Posts |
1858-O
Cool coin!
swcoin.ecrater.com
|
| |
Replies: 21 / Views: 3,588 |
Posted 12/05/2013 12:53 am
