Does this one look weird to you?
Lostintranslation
Posts: 146 ✭✭✭
I'm no expert in this series but it just doesn't look right.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/275482790057?hash=item40240dc8a9:g:uzcAAOSwPAdjOE~H&amdata=enc:AQAHAAAAsJ0gV8fDIolwcEJ+rvNHuSOsoqOt7KqbHHEOIayWUOXYllHYmEBrlbDqZZN9ie4B8YPcggppECQPuU63OQDKYgarHVP8Lx5oqLEkmkrEtxCYEnKGoVhNFcKzt+ZbKiCdAxYIx6r5d6r+IbxVJaFumaZ7Ljcrne7M9ZBEDNdMKKk2aoDsT80ulsrEZFbcGUKmj4wK4YZVk7w62qa3xMYTdVJecXliLI/KnOppnbll0kQ4|tkp:Bk9SR_bh-dTyYA
0
Comments
I think it is genuine. And it also looks like original toning (not cleaned).
The price seems a little high for an AU-55 1917-[P] Type 1 Standing Liberty Quarter.
I think the photo contrast has been somewhat boosted.
The coin looks genuine to me, as well.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I wonder why the seller ended the listing.
(I agree, it looks good, although the photo has been manipulated.)
peacockcoins
Reminds me of that WLH that caused quite a commotion here awhile back.
I agree with the OP- It looks "different". I don't see any obvious tells that is is not real. It might just be the photo.
Definitely has a different "look":
hmm.
my head is about to hit the pillow so i'll keep it shorter than i want.
(read all the comments, looked at the pics, looked at T1 CF images)
until i see an authentic one with thick, flat digits in the date like the op coin, i'm calling foul because while odd things like that happen in striking it is usually when another area has issue(s) like the date does, it does tend to manifest elsewhere on the coin too. YMMV
@Lostintranslation
i see what you were going for. usually coins in the condition as the one in the op appears to be, they don't have that circ-cam look but MMMMMMAAAANNNNYYYYY counterfeits do (and some lovely authentic ones), so you are on the right track, however this one pans out.
edited to add:
now i've slept, i do see corresponding weakness opposite the date on the rev. fwiw
Edge view:
The coin appears to be authentic. The pictures may be enhanced though. Seems the listing was pulled for some reason. Cheers, RickO
Keeps relisting with a lower price: https://www.ebay.com/itm/275483847678?hash=item40241debfe:g:uzcAAOSwPAdjOE~H
I am struggling with this one being good...
Looks like someone bought it.
Pocket Change Inspector
No, the listing was removed...
Probably someone reported to eBay it was fake.
DPOTD-3
'Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery'
CU #3245 B.N.A. #428
Don
The Seller ended the auction- not eBay.
peacockcoins
Oops!
DPOTD-3
'Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery'
CU #3245 B.N.A. #428
Don
I respectfully disagree...
I can't convict the coin but it is a suspect to me.
I was primarily looking at the lettering. Nothing glaring but I will note some interesting items. On the reverse the letter 'A' in all of the words on the bay coin have a left and right leg that appear to be equal thickness (or very close). On the other coin all of the letters 'A' have a left leg that appears thinner than the right leg. It varies from letter to letter but left not as thick as right.
Once seeing this and then looking at other letters some similar type things can sometimes be seen. Like the stem of the Q, or what appears to be thinner lettering or more round like the O's and D. Some of this could be due to this 'toning' on the eBay coin. Also note that while the date strike is off (and possibly other) on the ebay coin the loop of the 9 does connect and close but does not on the other coin.
Again nothing glaring but suspect to me.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=wwmUMvhy-lY - Pink Me And Bobby McGee
.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=D0FPxuQv2ns - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Maybe I'm Amazed
RLJ 1958 - 2023
I would have to do a few tests, not something I would buy without making sure it's even silver.
bob
The left one seems to have a larger image, when side by side showing the obverse.
I wonder if use of the word "details" in the caption has a hidden meaning?
Kinda reminds me of this one:
The coin caused a real stir.
Pete
I would not buy that quarter. I agree the flat thickness of the date is off. And... the closeup of the head compared to another coin shows the dot-dash pattern above the head significantly different. I'd say a fake.. but very convincing.