Odds That These Coins Are Fakes?

A rock tumbler may assist in 'hitting and dinging up a counterfeit. Put it in with a bunch of other coins and debris and turn it on for a week or two.

I'm not going to take one for the team lol#128515;. The bid is north of $500 now so there must be some believers that are willing to take a flyer. I agree with Slider23's comment on the placement of the 7.

Yeah, the fact that the 1799 wasn't listed as a stand-alone was enough of a clue for me. I'm surprised that ebay didn't take down the listing even after I reported it last week. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised though.

On the 1795, I am leaning toward genuine at it appears to be the Pole Connected to Denticle variety, but it has issues with corrasion and photo quality to make a firm conformation. On the 1801, I could not put a variety to the example as there is not enough details available in the photos. On the 1801 and 1799, I am leaning toward fake because of the gold stuff and the position of the 7, but a in hand evaluation would be needed to confirm my position. Do I think that ebay should pull down the coins for being fake? No, unless someone can provide better information on why the coins are fake.

The seller looks legit and offers a 30 day return. This allows for plenty of time for getting an educated, hands-on opinion. I'm in accord with wait and see on this lot.

Years ago, I attended a local estate auction that offered a massive amount of coins, mostly sold in bulk lots. Surprisingly, the only rare coin apparent therein was a questionable 1799 cent. It had VG details but was dark and lacquered. It lacked the triangular reverse die mark, Because of the lacquer, I took a chance and bought it. I'd previously read that some 19th century collectors had lacquered rare coppers. I couldn't ascertain whether it was genuine or a fake. The wear was consistent, obverse and reverse, with full rims; and, no evidence of alteration.

I took it to a dealer friend who'd had numismatic books published and dealt with many 1799's. He offered to remove the lacquer and got 99.9% of it off, overnight. Still, he had the same problem I did, saying "I can't say it's genuine, but I can't say it's not." Months passed, and I took it to the FUN show. One of the top coppers experts said it was an early die state and offered me 3k for it.

I took the risk, and it paid off. IMHO, odds are that the ebay 1799 is a fake, but there appears to be no down-side for the buyer.

Agreed, jacrispies, but I see that as minimal; especially so, in comparison to the TPGer's and their body bag issues. Having purchased 1,700+ items on ebay, I've yet to experience a problem with any of my few returns. I have far more of a problem with ebay charging sales tax on U.S. postage than I do simply by my paying return postage on an item.

Even though I lean toward this 1799 being a fake, I do believe the buyer's odds of getting a winner are better than the lottery.

I've yet to see anyone here asserting that the 1799 is genuine.

Again, I ask those who assert this '99 is a fake, give us diagnostics, not baseless feelings, please .... The CCF is a place to learn.

The 1795 appears to have a better chance of being authentic. From my observations, the color is correct, corrosion is natural, and it has heavy damage which is common.

The 1799 and 1801 have more of a strange appearance. The color is unnatural, and the wear seems uneven. Nothing says that these coins are 100% fake, just a little suspicious. The wear patterns aren't exact on both 1799 and 1801 large cents, so they aren't poor fakes that just had the dates changed. There may be some natural brown color underneath the silver on the reverse of the 1801.

From the seller's other items for sale and sold item history, he seems like a genuine seller that adds no more suspicion that these coins aren't authentic.





Hmmm, maybe I will!

I don't really want to tie up a couple thousand buckaroos, but I am willing to see where it ends up.