1877 Indian Cent, real or fake
 of 4-17-04 004.jpg)
UtahCoin
Posts: 5,346 ✭✭✭✭✭
Something is wrong here... The N on the reverse is not right, the denticles on the obverse look a little to sharp... Is it a corroded proof? Counterfeit? Rick Snow where are you??
Link
Link
I used to be somebody, now I'm just a coin collector.
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
0
Comments
and the second 7 looks very off. FAKE
bob
Proof 1877
* The date style isn't right; the digits are too big and not aligned properly for the date;
* The reverse has a bold N, and authentic business strike 1877s have a shallow N reverse;
* The obverse denticles are hammered from 10:00 to 1:00, which are usually weaker on authentic 1877 IHCs;
* Type 2 obverse on a Type 1 date.
Trust me: You don't need Rick for this one. It's as bogus as they come.
Has anyone contacted the seller &/or eBay?
Q: Hi. Is this coin authentic? I am going to send it in to get slabbed. Thanks, John
A: We guaranteed everything we sell
Return policy: Return policy not specified.
Read item description for any reference to return policy.
Can't find the return policy (duh), but they do say, WINNING BIDDER WILL RECEIVE THE COIN(S) SHOWN
Somehow that's supposed to make us feel better I guess.
Dennis
Looking for PCGS AU58 Washington's, 32-63.
<< <i>The feather tip points between C and A in America. That style did not come out until 1886. >>
Good catch TJ ... somebody call out the posse ... all the way fake
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
Fly-In Club
My PCGS Registry Sets
<< <i>The feather tip points between C and A in America. That style did not come out until 1886. That alone condems it to being a fake/altered coin. Proof 1877 indian cents did have a strong N on the reverse. >>
Now its up to 395 with 12 hrs to go for some poor soul that doesnt know anything about them
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
<< <i>The feather tip was a good catch. I was busy looking at the reverse N and the the obverse denticles... >>
That's what I meant by "type 2 obverse on a type 1 date."
He adds that this is a good investment and will never go down in value. Run Forest run.
I emailed the seller but obviously to no avail.....they're power sellers.
roadrunner
<< <i>i agree that its Fake by first seeing the feather tip position
Now its up to 395 with 12 hrs to go for some poor soul that doesnt know anything about them
Did someone report this fake to eBay?
I know, it is a holiday weekend and typically they are very slow on holiday weekends, but they might invalidate the sale.
It's also interesting the timing of the sale (a holiday weekend).
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
One odd thing about the coin (other than being fake) is that being a type 2 reverse would mean that if it was retooled they had to retool the entire date since type 2 obverse coins also have the curved not straight date (type 1 date). If someone was going to retool one it would be easier to start with an 1875 and tool the 5 into a 7.
On a cast or spark errosion fake it seems that it would be logical to copy a real 1877. Has anyone seen if those fakes had the type 2 obverse?
Just makes me wonder how this was made, if someone could retool the entire date? Maybe that's why it has goo or corrosion on it to hide a lot of tooling. Seems like a lot of retooling.
Any ideas from the experts?
<< <i>One odd thing about the coin (other than being fake) is that being a type 2 reverse would mean that if it was retooled they had to retool the entire date since type 2 obverse coins also have the curved not straight date (type 1 date). If someone was going to retool one it would be easier to start with an 1875 and tool the 5 into a 7. >>
I would think the entire date was redone, most likely. This isn't a simple alteration of an existing Type 2 date. It looks like the entire existing date on a Type 2 coin (1886-1909) was obliterated and then re-worked into the finished product.
Also, not all "type 1" dates have a straight-across date. As far as the bronze pieces go, from 1864-1871 and 1882-1886, the date was curved. (In 1881 the date was odd, somewhere in between straight and curved. It looks like the engraver was drunk with the punch.) Only the 1872-1880 dates were straight across. The 1872-73 dates were very small and the 1874-80 dates were considerably larger.
One Hour to go ~
<< <i>Who's going to snipe it ?
One Hour to go ~ >>
Hope "Bidder 8" bought some Vaseline at the store this weekend, unless they are lucky enough that a sniper bails them out. In which case, I hope the sniper has a tube on hand.
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.