I wonder if those that think this coin genuine would still think so if all of the info was shown to them all at once in the first post? I think some are more protecting their ego's than looking at this rationaly at this point. mike
"The numerals and lettering appear to be from the 1880's, yet the date placement is wrong for the 1885."
IF "the coin" is not genuine, I suggested that a "9" could have been planted on an 1885. Is there a possibility that a "5" was lifted from an 1885 and planted on a '96, '97 or '98?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Sorry for the rather large pictures, but since they're available, let's discuss some interesting points.
First of all, the second coin is a certifed PR53. Note the crispness in strike and the remaining proof surfaces. How much wear would have to occur to lose those proof surfaces? Note the crispness of Liberty's hairline and in particular the two locks of hair above her eye and next to her ear - the level of strike on these locks is impressive.
Note also the extra tiny bits of metal adjacent to stars 6 and 7 on the 1895. And note how the denticles tend to run together - they lack the uniform crispness of the certified proof.
I was hoping for a bit of an update- is wolf359 the only one who is saying it's a proof, or are others also thinking that? Maybe there should be another poll??
My style is impetuous, my defense is impregnable !
<< <i>I was hoping for a bit of an update- is wolf359 the only one who is saying it's a proof, or are others also thinking that? Maybe there should be another poll?? >>
Actually, some of us stopped caring about 200 posts ago.
"First of all, the second coin is a certifed PR53. Note the crispness in strike and the remaining proof surfaces. How much wear would have to occur to lose those proof surfaces? Note the crispness of Liberty's hairline and in particular the two locks of hair above her eye and next to her ear - the level of strike on these locks is impressive."
Exactly. Crispness is not to be seen on "the coin."
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Comments
IF "the coin" is not genuine, I suggested that a "9" could have been planted on an 1885. Is there a possibility that a "5" was lifted from an 1885 and planted on a '96, '97 or '98?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Yes. It's geniune. And Yes, I've read all the threads.
Free Trial
First of all, the second coin is a certifed PR53. Note the crispness in strike and the remaining proof surfaces. How much wear would have to occur to lose those proof surfaces? Note the crispness of Liberty's hairline and in particular the two locks of hair above her eye and next to her ear - the level of strike on these locks is impressive.
Note also the extra tiny bits of metal adjacent to stars 6 and 7 on the 1895. And note how the denticles tend to run together - they lack the uniform crispness of the certified proof.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>the solution is simple: sell the coin to Wolf359
I was just thinking that....
Free Trial
<< <i>I was hoping for a bit of an update- is wolf359 the only one who is saying it's a proof, or are others also thinking that? Maybe there should be another poll??
Actually, some of us stopped caring about 200 posts ago.
Exactly. Crispness is not to be seen on "the coin."
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein