| Author |
 Replies: 13 / Views: 1,371 |
|
|
Moderator
 United States
16677 Posts |
swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
 Ouch--did somebody 'polish' that using the sidewalk?  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7613 Posts |
It's a hole filler for somebody.
Looks like it was a metal detector find.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3253 Posts |
I think there's just enough detail on the reverse to say it's neither S-188 or 189, so safe to say not 1799.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
16677 Posts |
I was trying to study that too p. Cool.
swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
Pillar of the Community
861 Posts |
I can guarantee that no reputable dealer nor certifier would ever state that this coin is dated "1799". The seller should be ashamed.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4415 Posts |
The seller should add title to the Brooklyn Bridge in this sale.
|
|
Moderator
United States
16677 Posts |
I've emailed him: "What makes you sure this is a 1799?" Awaiting response  swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4415 Posts |
I'm guessing that the seller is somehow "seeing" the illusion of a telltale die chip amid the damaged reverse.
|
|
Moderator
United States
16677 Posts |
That would be on the left top of the T of CENT.
I see nothing.
swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4415 Posts |
Yes, Vermontensium, the little triangle that appears on many a true '99. I looked but didn't see it, either. There's so much ruggedness upon the surface of this piece that one could virtually imagine they see the chip; this, somewhat akin to seeing a face on the surface of the moon.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
It is NOT a 1799. Note the berry to the right of the E in ONE. It is just above the center of the E. On all the 1799's it is up by the upper serif of the E. I don't know what it is,but I know it is NOT a 1799.
I don't think the highest wave of hair is far enough to the right on the R in LIBERTY.
Edited by Conder101
12/04/2014 1:23 pm
|
|
Moderator
United States
16677 Posts |
That too conder. His response: This was a very tough call. When we first examined it the coin appeared to be a 1798 variety because we thought it was a rev. hub of 1799. As we looked further under microscope we can see traces of the rim break in the dentils above F A on the reverse. Having said all that our ebay department was a bit zealous in calling in a 1799. My professional opinion is that it should have been listed as a date range 1798-1799. More of a filler coin for a set. - Then why not title it as such? swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Looks like a used re-entry shield from an Apollo capsule.
|
| |
Replies: 13 / Views: 1,371 |
|
Posted 12/03/2014 7:51 pm
