| Author |
Replies: 30 / Views: 3,341 |
|
New Member
United States
7 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
I don't know if PCGS would actually slab it since it would be only a guess on date unless there is more visible in hand than there are in the pictures. I am not very familiar with this series but if there are some kind of die markers that can be seen to tell the difference between dates then it may be possible they will say it is an 1856 but if there isn't I think chances are slim that it will come back in anything but a body bag
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1081 Posts |
I wouldn't waste your money. To me, its nearly impossible to discern a date, the last digit could be just as easily an "8." THere are some die characteristics, but they will be nearly impossible to discern to the condition.
|
|
New Member
 United States
7 Posts |
I would say that the supposed 6 is more visible in person when you look at an angle, I'll see if I can get some pictures
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3345 Posts |
 to this here community. I can't even see the 185, let alone the last number. But I sure hope it is!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3345 Posts |
can we see the reverse? please?
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
20753 Posts |
 Almost so bad it's hard to tell it was ever a coin. 
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
That's going to be really tough to confirm or deny--because how do you scrutinize design from corrosion?* If your coin had stronger legends, it might be possible to tell, since the lettering styles differ from 1856 to 1857-8. For future reference, here are some differences between 1856 and 1857-8 LL. It's also a good way to tell altered 1858 LL FEs. 1. Serifs on the E and F are strongly flared and touch the top strokes of both letters. 2. The inside of the O in OF is noticeably rectangular; the O for 1857-8 is more oval. 3. The bottom point of the 1856 M is bulbous; the 57-8 M tapers sharply.  *You could try sending it to Rick Snow, but there might not be enough detail for him as well. 
Edited by DVCollector 06/13/2011 4:41 pm
|
|
New Member
 United States
7 Posts |
Here is the reverse, even worse than the obverse, taking a close look at the 'E', it's the least worn part but may be to worn to discern 
|
|
New Member
 United States
7 Posts |
A closer look at the 'E', not sure what to make of it 
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
9104 Posts |
Quote: I can't even see the 185, let alone the last number. But I sure hope it is!
You blind? It's in big red numerals! ROFL
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
870 Posts |
I'd send it in. I don't know that it is, but what the heck, can't hurt!
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
9104 Posts |
would a genuine 56 be worth more than the slobbing fee?
|
|
New Member
 United States
7 Posts |
As long as it was certified to be an 1856, I would think so, other AG pieces have sold for a few to several thousand. Even though this is in such horrible shape, I think someone would probably pay a decent amount just to say they have one
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
thing about it is, it is a problem coin with the corrosion so it would never grade and I really have any doubts it would ever make a genuine slab in this condition
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
817 Posts |
You need a bigger microscope.
I think the E looks like the 56, but that and $4 will get you a cup of coffee at the Staw-place.
|
| |
Replies: 30 / Views: 3,341 |