1895 IHC Uncirculated

Coin looks cleaned. There are two nubs on top of each corner of shield touching denticles. this bothers me because they don't belong there.

Not only is it cleaned, it also shows high point wear on the ribbon and curl so it's not technically uncirculated either. Those "nubs" are just the die crumbling.

polished

I recognize that technique from a certain ebay seller, although it's not relevant whether I'm right aside that seller is known to be an honest businessman regardless of the quality of his images or coins. If you buy and don't like, he'll work with you.

That said, I'm not drawing final conclusions from what I see here. The coin is overlit and washed out to an extent, and that bears directly on any opinion of whether or not the surfaces are original. The idea of an IHC in Mint State - certainly looks darn close to that - surviving this "bright" does not necessarily worry me, and the obviously (but slightly) off-center strike tends to reinforce but not confirm the notion that it's not counterfeit. I'm prepared to believe it's never been cleaned, but in truth the odds are against.

The nubs on the shield are believable functions of a somewhat well-used die, and not necessarily red flags either. The few marks I see are not inconsistent with what a Mint State coin might pick up in a bag. However, I worry in that some of the earliest signs of circulation are in the unfocused areas of the coin.

There. I've just typed a whole bunch of stuff without coming down firmly on either side of any equation. My work here is done.

I'm currently researching, especially about the date, and may have more to say in a few minutes.

The moment you see indications that coin and camera are not plumb, square and level to each other, you have to begin distrusting what you see of spatial relationships and indeed the actual shape of features. This coin is sharp at the top and blurred at the bottom, therefore out of square on at least one axis. That specific axis - horizontal as we look at it - shouldn't introduce distortions affecting the apparent horizontal width of the 8 or 9; that should be a function of the vertical axis. However, foreshortening is a very real problem with misalignnment on this axis and it could be sufficient to affect everything else.

I lean towards believing the authenticity. The date tilt is known and appropriate, as are the closed 9 and 5. The 9 has a ding affecting its' appearance. The apparent stroke differences between sides of the 8 are the chirf problem with the date, and thaqt's within the tolerance for photographic error I'm talking about.

I am a firm believer in Occam's Razor as the rule to which one seeks exceptions, and the predominant body of evidence indicates it's genuine. No firm assumption regarding the quality of the surfaces can be made from these images, but with this guy and the right price (especially if you're a regular) I'd probably pull the trigger.

I recognize this seller also. And like SDave mentioned, he'll work with you.

The photos would keep me from pulling the trigger also. I would contact him and inform him I would be interested in seeing a couple more photos before I decided to purchase it.

I think Dave did a good job answering the question. I agree the pictures are a little blurry to see possible wear and the lighting is making it hard to see the correct color.