Here's One You Don't See Too Often...

In this case I'm going to side with the seller.
While it appears a nub has been removed from the end of the 6, that wouldn't be enough to fake a Far 6.
More importantly, the baseline of the 6 matches the 2 well enough for me to think it's genuine.
The baseline on the N6 is noticeably higher--that's a second diagnostic I use when I'm unsure of the first.

mkb, I find overlays useful at times, yet the results ultimately depend whether two photos compare accurately to make an overlay useful. For instance, if the photos are shot at slightly different angles, the overlay results may be inaccurate too.

For that reason, I prefer to compare relationships within each coin and that way results are less dependent on optical distortions. But, everyone has their own methods. Here's a quick example of mine, where I compare baselines of the coin in question (top) to a verified Far 6 and Near 6. To my eyes, the 6 in the "Near 6" is notably above the baseline of the 2, but the coin in question (top) is closer in that regard to the verified "Far 6" (middle)--that's just what I see. Similarly, I don't think you could cut off that much of the 6 to look "far" while preserving a shape that looks so similar to the verified coin--any possible damage is quite slight.

click for full-size


That's just my opinion of course, but I think before we cast any aspersions on ebay sellers, we need to be more certain this is some kind of forgery. Here I tend to feel this coin is legit, with perhaps die, post-mint damage, or simply a bad photo.

Here is the same image - rearranged:

mkb,
I'm still going to disagree here. If it's a matter of simply overlaying the Near 6 with the "altered" 6, that doesn't take into account the different position of those digits in relation to the whole date. Position is important too; that's the second criteria I use when I have doubts about damage to a 6. Besides, one could also overlay verified Near6/Far6 and arrive at a similar discrepancy, as the 6 on the "Far 6" coin is stubbier--you can see that in your side-by-side directly above.



Like I said, I feel I can eyeball the differences here, but I did these comparisons for the benefit of the forum. I'll let others comment further if they like.

I find it difficult, (for me, to make a good comparison in this type of test. I prefer the use of the whole date, (where the digits are involved in a position, or font, etc), rather than the use of single digits, with lines for reference. The Charlton catalog uses the same procedure. with the whole date, etc, one can relate to the difference(s), and see where there is a variation. I realize that not everyone has the same vision problem that I have, and so it might be easier, by comparison. IMHO.
Dick

Regarding this specific variety--yes, I have observed the 6 of the "Far 6" variety to have a shorter vertical stroke than the "Near 6" version. Even so, altering the stroke of a 6 does't affect the digit's position relative to the rest of the date--that's the best way to determine an altered date on a question coin (IMO). Therefore, if the 6's baseline was equal to a Near 6, I would've agreed with you.

I pulled down a couple of images from heritage coin - a Near 6 and a Far 6 (since they have decent images to work with). In overlaying the two Heritage 6's, KurtS is correct in stating that the Far 6 has a slightly shorter vertical stroke than the Near 6. However, the 6 in question has an even shorter vertical stroke than the shorter Far 6. This may be due to altering it or it may be due to damage as I have a Near 6 with damage right at the tip of the 6, in which the tip is nearly removed. In the 6 in question, a residual part of the full digit can still be seen (or so it appears). As for how the digit lines up, the base of both Near 6 and Far 6 are at about the same horizontal level. However, the Far 6 is tilted (from the top) a bit towards the 2 as compared to the Near 6. This is easily seen when overlaying the two Heritage images. But its not as easy to see when overlaying the image of the 6 in question (probably because it has weaker resolution). However, that said, the tilt of the axis of the 6 in the image of the coin in question is a closer match to that of the Far 6, than it is to that of the Near 6.

On your last image, you should do the same for a Far 6 and compare to the "altered" 6 coin--if you want.
Like I said, I can eyeball the baselines of the 6 for both varieties and come to a quick determination for myself.
I find the "axis orientation" you show a difficult diagnostic because I don't see a reference for aligning both ends of that line. What do the baselines tell you?

Here I feel I've said too much--and possibly come across as some tedious hair-splitter, LOL when calling this variety is much easier--IMO. One should be able to call a Far 6 in less than a minute, even if something funky is going on with the 6. The whole coin can be lost in the details. Cheers!