Caution to bidders on this half dime

Comments

• rhedden Posts: 6,632 ✭✭✭✭✭

  October 30, 2007 11:50PM

  I'd agree, this is not an 1863. I think it's been slightly bent and straightened, too, like so many H10c have been. The unever wear pattern (like near the date) results when the coin is bent, then put back into circulation. Anyway, who would want to pay that kind of money for a coin with a weak date, when the date is what makes it valuable in the first place? It's like buying a 1909-S indian cent with a faint S mintmark that can barely be seeen in a 10x loupe.

  0
• MrHalfDime Posts: 3,440 ✭✭✭✭

  October 30, 2007 11:58PM

  It is difficult to tell if this half dime is actually an 1863 without having the coin in hand, but the shape of the fourth digit in the date strongly suggests it is an 1860 rather than an 1863. The left side of the digit extends further down than it would for a 3, and there is no ball of the top loop of the 3. On a genuine example of the 1863, the base of the 1 in the date would be repunched. Also, for a genuine 1863, there is a diagnostic die crack on the reverse from the rim at K3:30 to the wreath. Neither of these diagnostics can be seen in the image. Additional important information about the reeding could be determined if you had the coin in hand. This coin appears to be an example of the 1860 date, one of the most common dates in the series, and not worthy of any bid consistent with an 1863. Caveat emptor.

  They that can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither Liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin

  0
• fc Posts: 12,793 ✭✭✭

  October 31, 2007 12:16AM

  when i looked at the coin, my first guess was not an 1863 but i am
  not an expert and i am simply making a guess.
  
  my gut says 1860

  0