| Author |
 Replies: 15 / Views: 2,335 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
745 Posts |
Tim Hughes
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
745 Posts |
I think it might be a counterfeit
Tim Hughes
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1450 Posts |
Is it being sold raw? The date does look odd. I have one of those coins and the date does not project out like that one you are looking at on ebay. The dates on the coins before 1925 appear pretty light. I have one in EF condition and it looks nothing like that coin. The date is distinct but not outstanding like your ebay coin. The 23-S is about a $1300 dollar coin in EF. It is probably the second most rare coin after the 1916 IMO. With a true date that good it should sell for a lot more than $150 in four days. I would not buy that coin online unless it was slabbed. That coin looks fishy to me. The date just looks to good to be true. It is practically jumping off the page. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1450 Posts |
The head of the coin is also way better than very fine. There is something wrong with this coin. It is so far beyond VF and yet it looks wrong. It seems to have almost a full head. I would think the seller would have a reserve price on the coin of $1000.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1308 Posts |
Too much rim wear, with no date wear? JMO
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
968 Posts |
The color looks off to me but it could just be the lighting. He goes out of his way to show the rim which is kind of odd, but nice if it is the same coin. My concern is that in the image right before those rim pics it kind of looks like there is a line on the rim on the lower right, almost like a casting line. Again, if it really is the same coin in all the shots then I'm obviously wrong, but if he is using a different coin for rim pics then I could be right.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6384 Posts |
The date is way too bold for this issue. Even uncirculated coins don't have dates with such high relief. It's gotta be some kind of fake, either a complete fabrication or perhaps an "added date" piece. I've seen "added mintmark" alterations but never a complete added date, but there's always a first time. For comparison, here's my MS-63 example, certified by NGC. Note how the date is soft at the top, even though the overall strike on this example is sharp enough to earn a FH designation.  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
11951 Posts |
To me ... A lot about this coin looks off.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5825 Posts |
Any coin at that price I'd want authenticated and declared original.
(That means slabbed.)
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
18456 Posts |
I think this SLQ is screaming fake . Everything about looks off .  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
745 Posts |
Bobby go get this counterfeit
Tim Hughes
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6370 Posts |
Very counterfeit. The rims, date, mintmark, and surfaces are all wrong.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
745 Posts |
no returns also.
giant red flag
Tim Hughes
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1450 Posts |
Hey, that coin has been removed from listing! Did Bobby do this by himself? It is good that everyone seemed to have the same reaction to this coin and it looks like it was fake.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
968 Posts |
Glad it is gone. I did more examination before it was pulled down. Most notably I saw what looked like raised bumps on the obverse and reverse plus there were issues with the way that the shield blended into the field below "ER". But since it is gone I won't waste my time going into the exact issues.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
|
| |
Replies: 15 / Views: 2,335 |
|
Posted 09/02/2016 10:15 pm
