Another Questionable Piece (Bust Dollar, tricky)
Numismaphile
Posts: 31 ✭✭
I hope this remains the right place to ask, you've all been so helpful about the "error" large cent I asked about. So a second challenge: I bought this dollar a year ago. Holed, the right weight, and silver, it looked real to me. I had the hole repaired skillfully, waited nearly a year for its return, it's the same coin (note ding/crack on rim), but now it looks wrong to me. I've shown it to half a dozen experienced dealers and they are split. It's on the way to grading but I just want to give someone a chance to predict whether my $ is to be fully wasted. Before and after photos here.
0
Answers
Excellent work!
Looks good from here.
peacockcoins
It looks like the repair guy also removed some stains. Otherwise, it looks like the same piece. Good luck!
Young Numismatist
The first obverse image made me question the coin. The additional pictures - especially the one of the reverse - made me feel better about it.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Someone more knowledgeable than me will have to review the various die variations found for this date. As I look at my 1798, I see several differences as compared with my PCGS VF25 CAC coin:
Quick comparison:
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Attribute 1798 bust dollars here:
http://www.earlydollars.org/wizarddata.asp?ID=54
I could do it, but you'll probably have fun doing it yourself.
I'm not questioning whether they are the same piece, just whether it's authentic. I appreciate all the direct feedback, and see the experts here as split as they are in real life. I will trust my own judgment from my ANA Summer Seminar courses and conclude it's not real, and let you know what the graders say when I hear back from them. I just couldn't drop all that money into a coin and turn my back on it short of $25, and I don't kick myself for thinking it was real upon acquisition.
One way to determine authenticity is to compare attributes to authentic pieces of the same date. I was taking a shot in the dark to provide you with an example and then the link provided by @yosclimber was another resource to do the same. You could actually research this and have more information in which to judge. It appears you don't wish to do so. Good luck!
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
OK, apparently my assumption that @Numismaphile [edit:] was interested in doing the attribution was too optimistic.
So I did it myself.
Starting point: 1798 bust dollar, 31 known die pairs:
http://www.earlydollars.org/wizarddata.asp?ID=54
The wizard asks 3 questions. The answers are:
1. Knob on 9.
2. 8 tilted left and nearly touches bust.
3. reverse stars in a vertical line under cloud.
The result is:
Variety: BB-96, B-6, R-2
http://www.earlydollars.org/wizarddata.asp?ID=62
What this means is that this coin is a die match to a known die pair.
It could still be a fake, if it was created from dies made from an actual coin of this variety.
We do know the variety attribution does not prove it is a fake.
@Catbert - what variety is your coin?
1. Pointed tail to 9
2. 8 touches the bust
3. Stars arranged in curved arcs/Last star in second row low (using rev photo sent by PM)
Variety: BB-105, B-23, R-1
http://www.earlydollars.org/wizarddata.asp?ID=96
@yosclimber I don't want to hijack the OP's thread, so I'll take this to PM.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
YOS, while I appreciate the relevant links and your opinion on the coin, there's no call for being rude. If I don't do any more research on this it's not for lack of interest or because I am lazy or inept. It's because I've taken half a dozen ANA authentication courses taught by the best people in the world, have already spent over 25 hours on it, and there just comes a point where you can only spend so much time on one piece. I extend my thanks to those who took the time to study and respond.
Here is the reverse photo. I thought I had posted it.
I didn't see any rudeness.
You shouldn't blame us for responding the way we did when you only have 10 posts on the forum. We have to assume, without you're background revealed, that it is likely a counterfeit since we see so many here. You misinterpret someone trying to help, not mock you.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Responding to new members can sometimes be a thankless effort.
I try to judge coins on physical attributes, and to avoid assumptions about both coins and people. I'm not entirely new here, but conservative in posting. I definitely expressed my thanks and do again. If someone expresses being taken aback at a personal judgment, you can collectively deny his validity. But then again, you might also listen. I work with the public all day and see a hobby that has some chance to not die a slow death if we make some effort to welcome collectors and avoid the snarky end of the spectrum.
I think it will come back as genuine, hope you let us know.
Can’t say for sure from pics so just guessing but the coin looks ok. A repaired coin will often look “off” beyond the area of the repair itself because the coins are usually at least cleaned and darkened after the repair process which gives the coin an unnatural appearance. There is a chance it may come back “Authenticity Unverifiable” as counterfeiters also repair and mess up counterfeits to give them the appearance of a real but repaired coin.
Sorry if what I wrote came across as rude or snarky.
After reading it again, I see your point, so I edited it.
What I had written in my first sentence what that you were not experienced enough to do the attribution.
But this was possibly a poor value judgement on my part or at least it could have been written more clearly.
I did not mean that I thought you were an inexperienced collector, just that you were probably not
experienced at doing attributions like this. If you had that type of experience, it would have taken
you less than 2 minutes to answer those 3 questions and get the answer.
So my edited my first sentence to essentially say you "were not interested in" doing the attribution,
since you stated this was the reason.
My intent was really to blame myself for assuming that you would be both able and interested in doing the attribution yourself using the wizard.
I enjoy doing attributions, but sometimes I forget that not everyone does.
A very thoughtful and gentlemanly response. Thanks for seeing it through this way. I haven't written off the research, will go back and do some more study; I admire your depth of expertise here. Wish I had a day to spare for every die pair out there. I will follow up when I learn anything new about this coin, I think that's due. I don't understand how grading companies can get all of this right. Though that might be the biggest assumption of all.