Ebay Listing to Report

FlyingAl

I came across this listing when I was going through the 1964 proof sets on Ebay. The set is described as an Accented Hair, but the half is unfortunately not. The price is outrageous, but sometimes people do crazy things and I'd hate to see someone get burned on this set. You'd be surprised how many people get this variety wrong at points, so I'm not really blaming the seller for something that could be a mistake. Here is the coin:

And a genuine Accent Hair for comparison:

This is the listing link:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/373968515825?hash=item571242b2f1:g:tp0AAOSw1FtiKOml

ricko

That listed coin is clearly not an Accented Hair Kennedy... The seller obviously does not know the details - or does not care and thinks "If it is a 1964 it is an AH.".... Hope no one gets taken... Cheers, RickO

AUandAG

Sent note to seller, we'll see what he does.

bob

jmlanzaf

Really hard to tell anything from those photos.

Also weird that he has all this photos of multiple dirty envelopes.

TPRC

I find it next to impossible to identify the accented hair variety, and unless and until I do, I will never be able to purchase one (since I don't understand it). I have been told it is easy to identify, and I am a variety collector in general, but not with this one.

FlyingAl

@jmlanzaf @TPRC

The easiest way to identify it is to recognize that true Accent Hair coins have the accented hairlines** incuse** rather than raised. You can see in this picture three raised lines rather than the six long incuse hairlines that are shown in the picture below. This is the easiest way to tell along with the missing lower serif in the I in LIBERTY, also shown. So, if the lines are raised, not an AH, which is probably why @ricko could tell as well.

jmlanzaf

@TPRC said:
I find it next to impossible to identify the accented hair variety, and unless and until I do, I will never be able to purchase one (since I don't understand it). I have been told it is easy to identify, and I am a variety collector in general, but not with this one.

The "I" in liberty is fairly definitive.

ricko

Yes, I look for the heavily accented hair above the ear and the weak, lower left serif on the letter I in Liberty....
Those two areas will serve well in identification. Check the CPG for notes on the reverse. Cheers, RickO

jmlanzaf

@FlyingAl said:
@jmlanzaf @TPRC

The easiest way to identify it is to recognize that true Accent Hair coins have the accented hairlines** incuse** rather than raised. You can see in this picture three raised lines rather than the six long incuse hairlines that are shown in the picture below. This is the easiest way to tell along with the missing lower serif in the I in LIBERTY, also shown. So, if the lines are raised, not an AH, which is probably why @ricko could tell

I know, except raised or incuse is hard to decipher in photos and the "I" is not clear in the ebay photos.

ricko

I have been looking for - and finding them - for so long, that the PUP's jump right out and I do not need close examination. Cheers, RickO

TPRC

Thank you both as that helps a lot. I still have some trouble with the hair detail but the incuse versus raised explanation makes a lot of sense. Moreover, the diminished/missing lower left serif in the I in Liberty is distinctive and easily seen so thank you again.

FlyingAl

@jmlanzaf Contrary to popular belief, incuse vs raised is often very easy to tell in photos. Especially at this angle, those hairlines should be blazing in our faces. Just like @ricko Ive been looking at these and finish them for years.

There are only certain angles where raised vs incuse is not apparent, and this is not one. You can clearly see the three short raised lines above Kennedy’s ear just a little towards the forehead. Compare this to the regular issue proofs and you will clearly see the similarities, and realize that it is without a doubt not an AH. If it was, those accented lines would show clearly, and for these it comes down to if they’re there or not in the images. Hope this helps you!

jmlanzaf

@FlyingAl said:
@jmlanzaf Contrary to popular belief, incuse vs raised is often very easy to tell in photos. Especially at this angle, those hairlines should be blazing in our faces. Just like @ricko Ive been looking at these and finish them for years.

There are only certain angles where raised vs incuse is not apparent, and this is not one. You can clearly see the three short raised lines above Kennedy’s ear just a little towards the forehead. Compare this to the regular issue proofs and you will clearly see the similarities, and realize that it is without a doubt not an AH. If it was, those accented lines would show clearly, and for these it comes down to if they’re there or not in the images. Hope this helps you!

With all due respect, we've had numerous arguments over raised vs. Incuse in this forum from multiple angles. The angle of the photo is far less important than the angle of the lighting. I will never trust a photo to be definitive... well, unless I spend way more time looking at lighting angles which is a little hard to do with the crinkly cellophane.

Not that I think that's AH.

FlyingAl

Looks like the listing was pulled. Thanks for the help all!