1879 Indian cent (w/grading poll)
lordmarcovan
Posts: 43,673 ✭✭✭✭✭
lordmarcovan
Posts: 43,673 ✭✭✭✭✭
lordmarcovan
Posts: 43,673 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
This coin was an inexpensive pickup which I believe will match the "CircCam" (circulated cameo) look of my VF-XF type set. The seller called it XF, which I disagree with, but I like it as a low-end VF, perhaps, and I paid less than VF money for it. Numismedia says $15 in Fine, $30 in VF, and $67 in XF. This was priced at $25 BIN when I put it in my watchlist. When I came back to buy it, the price had been reduced to $20! So after shipping, $21.99. So I came in below VF money.
Yes, I could have found plenty of XF Indian cents for my set, but it's very difficult to find appealing "CircCam" copper. Usually the CircCam look goes hand-in-hand with porosity or other problems when it's on copper or nickel coins. Maybe the poll will assign this as a "problem" coin, too, but it looked nice enough to me, and worth taking a twenty-dollar chance on.
I also sort of wanted an easier date from the 1870s- in other words, a slightly less-common date overall, but without the added expense of it being a key- or semi-key date. So I was happy that this one, the only one I found with the look I wanted, happened to be an 1879 rather than a more common post-1886 date.
Eh, oh well. I can live with that. This was the cheapest purchase so far for the set, and I thought I'd go for the CircCam look, like I said.
Worst case scenario, I guess I've wasted twenty bucks and some change on a hole filler.
To be candid, I half expected some "Gennie" votes here, on the chance that the fields maybe look a bit porous in the pictures.
'Tis a risk one takes with CircCam copper and nickel, as mentioned.
And this was not a coin I expected the forums to rise up and unanimously cheer about.
I have no regrets on takin' a chance- I have yet to see it in hand.
If I don't care for the way it looks, there's a return privilege. So really I only eat the shipping to and fro.
<< <i>lacquered? >>
Could be.
I like that circ-cam look also, and have a few examples that are similar.
One favorite is an 1865 IHC that I call VF light cleaned that's just not quite as dark in the fields.
I also have a few Liberty Nickels with that type of "problem" of which I like the look.
I buy what I enjoy and from what I can tell you do too!
You can do better for your set!
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
Brian
Wasn't expecting it to be a big hit here, but I confess I wasn't expecting it to be so universally panned, either.
Ah, well. If I'm to have just one coin (out of nine so far in the collection) get bashed in the polls, it might as well be the cheapest one, right?
I see we have a "counterfeit or altered" vote. I'd like to hear the rationale behind that one. Haha. Funny how often people vote that option in one of my polls, but never "explain below" as requested. Why somebody would counterfeit a VF-details 1879 Indian cent and then make it dark and possibly lacquered looking is anybody's guess, right?
Oh, hey, maybe it's a Chinese counterfeit. Wouldn't that be a hoot!)
peacockcoins
Sure, this has almost cameo visual appearance, but that field darkness is a bit much for most Copper collectors.
I too voted for no grade- problem coin for environmental damage and a little gloss over with sone mineral oil or blue ribbon..
If you like it though, that's all tht really counts! It does have some character!
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014
Empty Nest Collection
Matt’s Mattes
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
Simply put 22 bucks for an Indian of that era with that amount of detail what downside can there be. Its a nice coin for what it is
and one can do far worse. I like the coin and don't think its out of place too fill a space in a type set. In a way the coin has a lot of soul
induces one to think of were the coin has been over its century plus of travels.
I liken this coin to holding an old colt 45 even though its been abused maybe in bad condition perhaps a bad restoration but its still a colt
even if its not a museum piece and takes one to a place in history to consider how the gun has taken on its defects and wear.
My perception of this coin is not like many here but I see it simply as a relic a piece of history.
<< <i>I bet that looking at all those lovely Ancients with their centuries of desert patina cameo effect has altered your perceptions a bit perhaps?
Sure, this has almost cameo visual appearance, but that field darkness is a bit much for most Copper collectors.
I too voted for no grade- problem coin for environmental damage and a little gloss over with sone mineral oil or blue ribbon..
If you like it though, that's all tht really counts! It does have some character! >>
Mea culpa. Y'know, I think you might be onto something about my background with ancients.
Don't forget I'm a detectorist, too, so they seldom come outta the ground looking even this nice!
The lesson learned? I guess if I'm gonna pursue nonsilver CircCams, I should stick to stuff that's in TPG holders, at least until I've got a better feel for where that dividing line lies between "acceptable CircCam contrast" and "problem coin". It's often a very thin line indeed with the copper and nickel coins- I knew that all along.
Hey, I think I pulled off a minor coup with the 1804 Spiked Chin half cent, after all. It arrived today and looks great.
So when this Indian gets here, I'll either stick it in my set as a "filler" (out of sheer stubborn-ness, if I still like the look of it in hand), or I'll probably plop it back into the Bay of E with a 99c start and let the chips fall, rather than trouble the seller with a return.
PS (@SamByrd)- thanks for those comments. They echo my original way of thinking.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
Genuine - light corrosion and verdicare "gloss"
Not too bad, I've seen worse!
If your happy, that is all that matters - sometimes the cheapest buy can be the most rewarding.
I took the cheap 3x glass I had on hand and gave it a look.
I honestly don't see anything wrong with it at all- I think I've seen worse in holders.
It's not quite so black looking in hand. A handsome dark brown on the "black" areas, and lighter brown on the high points. Looks like that very elusive phantom: the appealing copper CircCam. There are a few areas of (granularity?) in localized areas of the fields (call it micro-microporosity, maybe), but IMHO that is well within the realm of "market acceptability". (At least when I'm the market). I think some (though admittedly not all) of the graininess seen above may be the result of photographic artifacts like jpeg compression.
As a matter o' fact, I'm almost prepared to lay a challenge down on the table.
I'm not usually a betting man, but hypothetically speaking, this modest wager could go something like this:
If any naysayer has an Economy submission going off, and is willing to let me piggyback this coin, we can submit it and see what happens.
If the coin doesn't grade, I'd pay back your slab fee plus cough up oh, say maybe ten or twenty bucks?
If the coin does grade, you pay the fees and I get free slab grading out of the deal.
But I'd want to examine it a little bit more carefully in better light before committing to that wager.
Come what may, I'm quite happy with it and it suits my set perfectly as far as I'm concerned, until I find an XF with the CircCam look.
(Edited to fix typos. I miss the Preview feature.)
I'll lay that bet on the table, if anybody wants to take me up on it. See the post above.
Of course it would only be fair if I posted a new set of photos. Trouble is, I'm not so hot a coin photographer.
PS- the coin does not look lacquered to me. The seller might have oiled or put some substance on it prior to taking his photos above.