delete

coin22lover

.

Raybo

Classic large cents are a tough group, they always (mostly?) seem to be...………to make a long story short, your example is 100% original.

jdimmick

genuine with surface porosity

Insider2

There is no way to authenticate a coin in this condition by a granular image. In any case, thirty years ago I would have said genuine. Today, the fakes of copper cents (AFAIK not this date yet) are excellent and then many are corroded and circulated to make them easily pass as genuine.

basetsb

Appears to be genuine but is a details coin.

CaptHenway

Can’t tell.

Kyle

@Insider2 said:
Today, the fakes of copper cents (AFAIK not this date yet) are excellent and then many are corroded and circulated to make them easily pass as genuine.

I agree, upon my first look something seemed off about this coin.

I find it odd that both sides are so uniformly damaged without any other areas showing more severe corrosion or issues. The overall sharpness of the devices also grabbed my attention. Everything just seems too perfect for a corroded coin.

I'm by no means an early copper expert, this is just my opinion.

Walkerguy21D

Something seems off to me also.... the color, the details, the surfaces....but it may be okay.
If I get a chance tomorrow I’ll look at it on my monitor and compare it to my examples.

ColoradoCoinGuy

I am also in the camp that something doesn't look right. The Liberty headband looks odd to me for some reason. I would lean towards the coin being fake.

ColoradoCoinGuy

Looks like the Obverse could be of a S-291 as there might be faint traces of the die cracks above the head and right of the 2 in the date, but the reverse does not seem to be right as the Es in ONE CENT are too open. So still think it is fake.

lkenefic

If I recall correctly, getting copper planchets was not an easy proposition at the time and they suffered from inconsistent smelting practices that left them prone to corrosion. It's one of the more difficult issues to find super nice. That said, there's nothing that stands out to me as this coin being fake. However, The reverse of this coin has been harshly cleaned and there's an overall microporosity in the fields on both sides. I've seen pieces like this for sale often. I guess it depends upon how comfortable one is with the porous nature of the coin... and what is "market acceptable". Personally, I'd pass.

291fifth

I'd grade it ... PASS.

BillJones

I agree with @CaptHenway and @Insider2. You can’t say for sure from those photos, and it might even be hard in person. The bad “1803 half cent” that made it into a PCGS holder got caught because a specialist noted that part of the reverse was too sharp. The counterfeiter had strengthened it on his fake die.

I will say that this item has a Chinese counterfeit look to it with their type of finish. The only thing it lacks is a few spots of their greenish-grey corrosion.

ricko

I find it strange how 'ONE CENT' is so clear and shows no wear, while the lettering around the rim is very worn.... I would pass on this one... Cheers, RickO

Walkerguy21D

My two examples:

basetsb

My example

jmski52

This coin doesn't look right to me.

emeraldATV

Looks to me to be handled in a mannor as to say ,sure is,on the real side. Note : Insider said as this date, Why do it.

grip

Not sure. But would look good in my "china cabinet:

ColoradoCoinGuy

When looking at the two coins from @Walkerguy21D the right coin's Obverse looks like the Obverse on the OP coin. Note the date numbers and there relationship to each other. However I don't believe the Reverses of the two coins match (the E's in ONE CENT are different) which makes me believe the die marriage is incorrect on the OP coin thus making it a fake.

Walkerguy21D

Correct - the coin on the right would be S-291.....though I don't understand why the OP's coin is lacking the die breaks, that even die state 1 has.....and the "E's" do look a little thinner.