Vice Job Or Incredibly Rare Brockage?

I sat and stared at this for a while.

BStrauss3, your objections are all valid. They're also countered by the fact that you've never seen a vise job this good, either. I won't say I'm sure, but I will say I would have bid higher than the hammer for this coin had I known it existed. Seriously. I'd have risked $150+ on this one. I would have bought it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

A vise job wouldn't look that good, and it would be very hard to pull off without distorting the coin, or damaging the obverse, particularly on a tiny, thin coin like a 3c silver. The obverse looks like totally normal wear. And the darkness in the brockage side looks exactly how I would expect for an old, circulated silver coin. Can't say for certain without having it in hand, but I would also have risked the $150 on it and sent it straight to a TPG.

Did you win the auction, Vermontensium?

Third person

I hope one our own did though

Well, considering he's selling fakes and replicas (and a mysterious abundance of 1863 3-cent pieces)...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1867-Two-Ce...047675.l2557



http://www.ebay.com/itm/1863-error-...047675.l2557

http://www.ebay.com/sch/m.html?_odk...xt=&_sacat=0



Look at the shape of the 6 and the base of the 1. On the fake, the top points to the right instead of pointing downward and into a ball, and the base of the 1 is far too short (most easily seen on incuse side). Not only is he artificially inducing wear to the coins, he is making fake errors as well.

IF real why not have it authenticated?

I thought about the odd date, considered what wear and/or a hit at the top of the 3 would do, and considered how that might look transferred as a counterbrockage and then circulated some. Yes, some of it doesn't compute easily.

I would still have spent the money, and then dissected it under my own lenses.