Does this 1877 Indian Cent look real?

au58

Weakness at the upper obverse, blips on the obverse rim, and depression in the N of CENT on the reverse make this look like a cast counterfeit. Your thoughts please.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=41085&item=3949769222&rd=1

sumnom

linkified

BWRC

Looks good from this distance but would need in hand viewing to be 100% sure. The coin is not even close to an AU58. JMO,

ziggy29

I'm never too sure about raw key dates, but this one *looks* legit. The shape and position of the date seem correct, and weakness in the lower half of the N in "ONE" and the weaker, less defined appearance of the denticles from 10:00 to 2:00 are common features of authentic 1877 cents as well.

One thing I don't have access to, but would be useful in further authentication, are diagnostics for known struck copies (repeating depressions, et cetera). But I do know that the weakness of the upper obverse you describe is typical for *authentic* 1877 IHCs. My '77 is below (cracked from an NGC slab). Note the similarities:

Cam40

actually the depression or weakness in the N in ONE
is a diagnostic of an authentic piece.
are you saying the weakness make be faked
to make it look like the real thing?
thats possible as its not slabbed
but seller guarantees it is so, i dont know.
looks real from the pics.

BWRC

Yes, the dropped right 7 is correct. The reverse has the clash line above the "O" in one that is another positive diagnostic. Both N's are correct on the reverse. Lower N in cents has blunt force trama. Coin looks cleaned with rim nicks/damage and by EERC standards looks about VF35.

Barry

The seller has a bunch of negs and neutrals for overgraded/cleaned/bodybagged coins.

You know what they say about raw coins, key dates and Ebay...

shylock

It's tough to tell from the pic but the raised lumps of metal on the chin, in the fields and on the 1st feather tip (?) make you think twice. AU58 was refering to the depression in the N of CENT, not ONE, which also makes you wonder. The soft strike of the 2nd & 3rd feathers is typical.

BWRC

Here is a clearer image of an original coin. Notice the clash line above the "O" in one on original and on reverse of suspect. Raised bumps that have been discussed look like "hits" to me. Hand viewing would be a must.

shylock

Brian - here's a better look at the obverse, especially the chin and 1st feather tip. The mouth looks kind of funky too.

BWRC

P, Thanks for the closer shot,

There is alot of stuff going on with this coin but looks worse the closer it gets. I still think mouth and chin and 1st feather look like damage from possible hits? Lettering outlines in United looks crumbly, or is it corrosion? Alot of damage to this coin. Tossup and would have to view in hand but I would not put the effort in to owning something this banged up even if it was real. No offense to anyone,

ziggy29

<< <i>There is alot of stuff going on with this coin but looks worse the closer it gets. I still think mouth and chin and 1st feather look like damage from possible hits? Lettering outlines in United look crumbly, or is it corrosion? Alot of damage to this coin. Tossup and would have to view in hand but I would not put the effort in to owning something this banged up even if it was real. No offense to anyone, >>

I agree with that. To me it looks like damage and some cleaning/retoning, but there's nothing that makes me strongly suspect it's a counterfeit (though I'd still not buy a raw $1500-$2000 coin on eBay).

The common markers for an authentic 1877 are present. That would make me suspect a counterfeit struck from transfer dies (or cast using a genuine coin as the "model" such as an electrotype) as the most likely method for creating counterfeits, as that would be the most reliable way to "replicate" the look and diagnostics of a genuine coin. The problem with that hypothesis is that this process generally results in a loss of detail on the transfer die, and thus the details on these fakes are usually mushy and often granular in appearance. That doesn't seem to be the case for this coin. If the weight and diameter check out properly, I'd put at least 99% odds that this is a genuine '77 cent, albeit with some issues.

BWRC

Ziggy,

I am in your corner, probably genuine but needs further analysis to confirm its true origination.


Brian

majorbigtime

<< <i>The seller has a bunch of negs and neutrals for overgraded/cleaned/bodybagged coins.

You know what they say about raw coins, key dates and Ebay... >>






One neg and one neutral out of 367 transactions last year isn't "a bunch" IMO.

I agree that buying raw coins on Ebay (or anywhere) is risky business.

shylock

In fairness to the coin and seller, the crumbly look of the outline of UNITED may just be the result of me blowing the image up. And what looks liked raised areas to me may just be an optical illusion that's common in coin photos. But...they still look raised to me

Especially that nasty cold sore on the lower lip

BWRC

Paul,

We all see what we see, hehe

I don't mind that I will most likely never find out the true story on this coin and hope it finds a happy Ebay buyer!

Brian

1907Quarter

regarding wear on this one, it overall looks 45 but the lower curl is not seperated making it technically <40. What do you folks think?

BWRC

I gave it a VF35 in a previous post. actually a damaged VF35

BW

ziggy29

<< <i>regarding wear on this one, it overall looks 45 but the lower curl is not seperated making it technically <40. What do you folks think? >>

In terms of wear it appears to be a solid "commercial" XF-40/45 but a Fly-In VF-35. If this were an original and problem-free coin, the TPGs would probably grade this XF-40.

Though to be fair, when the ribbon and lower hair curl are *barely* separated, images often don't pick that up. That's the case with the '77 I posted -- in hand, you can see they *are* separated -- admittedly just barely -- but I couldn't get a digital image to show it.

tmot99

The color doesn't look right. Of course, that can be picture issues or from the already mentioned cleaning. Even if it is a rarity, I don't like the coin. JMO

Barry

<< <i>One neg and one neutral out of 367 transactions last year isn't "a bunch" IMO. >>


7 negs/neutrals I do consider that "a bunch" with a total FB of 600 or so. How many people didn't leave a neg or neutral for fear of a retaliatory neg? Yes, I'm cautious, but I've never been burned on Ebay.

Bikingnut

It's raw, and on ebay. Pretty much says it all.

LincolnCentMan

"AS USUAL, THIS COIN IS GUARANTEED AUTHENTIC.... AND ALL SALES ARE CONSIDERED FINAL"

Emmm... wouldnt touch it with a nine-and-a-half foot pole. Any coin in the $500+ range should be slabbed. I generally wont buy a coin in the $100+ range unless it's in a PCGS, NGC, or ANACS holder... and I dont buy many ANACS coins.

David

au58

Thanks to all for your inputs. On the obverse, there is a "disturbance" between the R and the T in LIBERTY that looks raised. Also, the major depression in the N of CENT on the reverse make me suspicious.

mr1931S

"The color doesn't look right. Of course, that can be picture issues or from the already mentioned cleaning. Even if it is a rarity, I don't like the coin. JMO "

This comment most closely resembles my thoughts when I saw the pics. Coin looks real and is guaranteed, whatever guaranteed is supposed to mean. Like the coin's appearance and thinking about making a serious bid? You should find out what the guarantee entails since there is the possibility, however remote, that the piece is not authentic.

I don't like the coin either. If I was looking to purchase one of these I'd much prefer a lesser technical grade coin with no problems and originality going for it.

rays

<< <i>THIS IS A "RAW" COIN (NOT PROFESSIONALLY GRADED OR SLABBED),... AND ALL SALES ARE CONSIDERED FINAL >>



'nuff said.

mr1931S

"AS USUAL, THIS COIN IS GUARANTEED AUTHENTIC.... AND ALL SALES ARE CONSIDERED FINAL"

My 9 1/2 foot pole telescopes, you know.

ziggy29

The original poster merely asked if the coin looked real or not -- not so much whether it's worth bidding on.

I think the coin looks real enough (but needs coin-in-hand analysis to confirm it), albeit cleaned and possibly retoned (and yes, some seemingly raised areas are suspicious but I think the coin has too much detail and most correct diagnostics in place to be a fake made from a genuine coin). However, a raw $1,500+ coin on eBay, with someone saying "all sales are final," is a red flag no matter WHAT the coin looked like and even if you were absolutely certain of its authenticity -- and we're not.

Frankly, if someone knows enough to say "this coin isn't slabbed," they probably know enough to know that a nice, undoctored and slabbed coin likely will fetch far more "extra" money than the $50 (including shipping and insurance) it costs to slab above and beyond a raw coin. Which always makes you wonder why it isn't professionally authenticated. Even a net grade in an ANACS slab (like EF-40 details, cleaned, net VF-30 for example) would be an improvement as at least the question of authenticity is all but eliminated.

Still, for about $1,500 you can probably find a certified, original and fairly problem-free VF-20. And that to me, as has been mentioned previously in this thread, would be preferable to a cleaned, questionable, raw commercial XF.

Merc

I posted about this dealer about a month ago. I was looking at a 1922 Plain die #2 Lincoln on ebay. The seller said it had been bodybagged by NGC as cleaned/damaged. This dealer bought it, darkened it in 1 week and resold it on ebay for 4X what he paid for it. If you check this ebay's dealer's history, you will see he buys bodybagged coins and ANACS net graded coins, cracks them out, and resells them without stating the problems.

This 1877 cent is real, but is damaged. The color is wrong and there are several rim dings. Here is where he got it from!
1877 again

The color seems to have changed.

Please be careful on ebay.

mr1931S

"This 1877 cent is real, but is damaged."

Appears to be real but diagnostics would all be there on a forgery using dies made from a genuine coin. Applied minor damage after manufacture serves to distract the potential buyer from diagnostics. It's no small detail.

Merc

OK, I'll edit what I wrote. It appears to be real from the pictures. The diagnostics are there, but I would need to hold it directly to be certain.

The main thing is to see the dealer's history. He buys damaged coins, retones them or cracks out net graded ANACS coins and resells them.

au58

One other comment that I meant to convey:

Cast counterfeits are often so deceptive in part because the diagnostics are transferred. It's the extra traits that the coin exhibits that bother me.

ziggy29

<< <i>Cast counterfeits are often so deceptive in part because the diagnostics are transferred. It's the extra traits that the coin exhibits that bother me. >>

Actually, that's the *main* reason they are deceptive. Unless a counterfeiter used a cast copy or transfer dies, the diagnostics of an authentic piece won't be there and fakes are easy -- almost trivial -- to identify.

But usually, cast copies and struck copies from transfer dies suffer from a loss of detail in the transfer process and often have a grainy appearance. This coin doesn't seem to show a lack of detail relative to a typical coin with its quantity of wear. That's why, IMO, just from the picture I think it's probably authentic. I'd not touch a raw '77 sight unseen on eBay, but if the further diagnostics (weight, diameter, specific gravity) all check out after I had the coin in hand, I'd be convinced it's authentic. Otherwise, we have a really good faker out there and need to be afraid...

MrEureka

Can anyone provide an image of an absolutely authentic 77 with dentils like those on this coin?

BWRC

Hi Andy,

Here is a different image of the same coin from a prior ebay sale. The color has changed but this image is alot sharper than the one above. .

Brian

ldhair

This ones a bit ugly but it's real.

au58

In the blown up picture provided by Andy, there looks to be extra metal near the base of the I and the top of the T in UNITED.

JadeRareCoin

This seller is currently being discussed on the NGC forum in this thread. Take a look at the 2 auctions that James has linked in his thread. It shows a coin that he sold in a very honest manner with high quality images. The high bidder then quickly listed the coin, but with a less critical description, imo. James asked my opinion on the matter this morning, so I took a close look at the images and it appears that the marks were smoothed out with photo editing software, but I am not 100% positive. If you save the image and then enlarge it using editing software, you will see what I mean. Either way, the new images look much better than the images that James provided.

That being said, I think that the 1877 Indian is probably real. Looks real at a quick glance. Maybe the guy sells real stuff, but the descriptions are..........well.......you know.

shylock

We should take up a collection to buy this 1877 just to quench our curiosity

Something I didn't notice yesterday: Is it just an illusion or are there numerous recessed areas on the wreath, potholes of missing metal just like on the N of CENT?