| Author |
 Replies: 12 / Views: 2,425 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
431 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
3058 Posts |
HMM, this is a hard one, I will watch for this one.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1584 Posts |
Nice lowball.
You might be able to see more detail in photos with various contrast settings (increase or decrease contrast).
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3210 Posts |
I see 3 tops of 8s so I think it was an 1888 not a 1894. Hopefully you can return it if you don't want it.
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
431 Posts |
Here's a photo with a different contrast, does this help?  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12057 Posts |
Played around with it in Photoshop. I believe it to be 1882, 1883, or possibly even 1888 or 1889, who knows.   Member ANA - EAC - TNA - SSDC - CCT #890 "Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done." -- Louis D. Brandeis |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3210 Posts |
Basically George I'd return it, its pretty conclusive its not a 1894, as Adam said it looks like 1882 or 1888. If the deal is too good to be true it usually is.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7390 Posts |
Paralyze nailed it. 1882 is what I see
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12057 Posts |
Not an 1894 no matter what. And if the date is not discernible in hand, it would not get a Poor-1 grade, but would come back as Genuine.
Member ANA - EAC - TNA - SSDC - CCT #890 "Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done." -- Louis D. Brandeis |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
784 Posts |
I could see this as an 1887 too. The flat front of the top of the 7 looks pretty close.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
15420 Posts |
Quote:
if the date is not discernible in hand, it would not get a Poor-1 grade, but would come back as Genuine. Actually ... from PCGS it would get body bagged as code 86 ... authenticity unverifiable. I've had several such experiences.  David Take a look at my other hobby ... http://www.jk-dk.art |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
593 Posts |
That looks like the Barber $.25 I found last month except I can barely see the 1893, but not the mint mark.
Send back that Morgan
|
|
Valued Member
United States
431 Posts |
Here are better enhanced pics of the date. The first digit is obviously a 1. The second digit is an 8. The third digit looks like a 9 as it is thinner than the 8 and looks like part of a 9. The last digit can only be a 2,3,5, 7, 8, or 9. I doubt its a 3,5 or a 9. It looks like an 1892 , and 1897, or an 1898. If I get a date I will post it in the grading forum. What do you think?   |
| |
Replies: 12 / Views: 2,425 |
|
Posted 04/12/2016 6:32 pm
