Ok experts, whats this an 8 or a 3?

Kaelasdad

Picked this coin up, and the last digit is half missing. but enough of it is there to hazard a guess--In hand, there are some differences in lighting, but this is the best i can do at the moment. What say you experts-- 8 or 3?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Bochiman

I'm gonna go with 8......I don't like it as a 3

1897smorgan

What is the denomination?....for historical reference.

Kaelasdad

here is a little more help, this is the 8 from that same mint.

photo courtesy of PCGS, our host

Kaelasdad

If i give the denomination it makes it even tougher to choose, lets go by just images at the moment

anablep

3

TexasNationals

It's a 8

Frankcoins

If we don't know the denomination and a guess of what you think it MIGHT be, you are sure putting everyone to a lot of needless work.

Kaelasdad

This is the 3 from the same mint

image courtesy of PCGS, our host

1897smorgan

I'm going to have to call it a "3"

messydesk

If it's a Flying Eagle cent, it's not a 3.

Kaelasdad

Ok, so, it seems mostly folks are going 8, some are going 3. The thing is, only maybe 5 of these Seated liberty Halves were minted as 1853 O no arrows no motto. There were quite a few 1858 O no arrows no motto minted. The devil is in the details. You could imagine that a person would try really hard to try to make a 3 out of an 8. But you also have to admit, there are some 3s out there--just because its messy, doesnt make it not a 3--just a beat us 3.
So, I have been looking at 5s, and 3s, and 8s, and Os--trying to see what the mint was using at the time of each coin. The 3 of 1853 is a meaty 3, the 8 of 1858 is a skinny eight. There is a curl of a 3 on the messed up coin--and a meaty meeting of the lower and upper parts of the right side of the digit.
The 5 looks off--in both years--but i cant find real tight images of the 1853 O to compare better.

My head tells me that it is very possible that it is an 8 pretending to be a 3--but why does an 8 has the lower curl of a 3 and is no where near what an 8 looks like from that year?

Thus, my request to have some unbiased opinions--but i got some replies where they need to be fully informed--so here you are fully informed.

Check the thinness of the 8s

picture courtesy of our host, PCGS

seanq

Give the context, it looks like an 8 that someone tried to turn into a 3. With so few 1853-O NA around you should be able to find a photo and compare the mintmark location, anything other than an exact match would indicate it is an 1858.


Sean Reynolds

coindeuce

There must be other markers that distinguish between '53-O N/A and a common '58-O. Did you look in
Wiley-Bugert ?

Kaelasdad

The reverse


No I havent gone anywhere but PCGS, and the forums--knowing we have some real experts hanging around here

MercCrazy

Oh, so you want everybody else to do the work for you? How about you do the legwork, post it all up here, and then the experts around will either confirm or deny that it's what you are hoping it is?

Kaelasdad

You my friend, must be new here. We have tons of experts on many different coins, and each has their respective knowledge--these are boards where we test, assist, evaluate, and learn--occasionally, we get someone who adds nothing, yet seems to think they have an opinion worth expressing. I suggest you take a deep breath, and learn. Perhaps, someday, you may have a question, and we will assist you.

I value the people i share these boards with. Thats why I post here, and more often, I READ here.

Aegis3

It's an "8". Or at minimum it's not a "3". The "8" on an 1853 is more "compressed," and the inner ovals have an ever slightly greater horizontal axis vs vertical. Opposite on an 1858. Look for the Byers collection at Stack's archive (pre-ANR merger).

Kaelasdad

This image is courtesy of the Stacks Byers auction


The first 8 looks like the 8 used in 53. The 8s used in 58 are much thinner. The top of the damaged digit is thicker as well, consistent with a 3 in 1853. The hard part is the 5. the 5 of the 1853 is compact, almost touching the curl, and pointy, but the 5 is completely different from the 5 of the 1858 series as well.

Confusing to say the least, but a fine argument as well. It certainly is not cut and dried--i would love to hear from someone with the authoritative book on halves, perhaps as commented , there may be other markers that differentiate for certain--especially when the key digit is nearly obliterated.

coindeuce

Here's a simple solution that was easily overlooked, even on my part and I pride myself on being thorough.
The 1853-O N/A issues that were made under mysterious circumstances are known to have been made on the old, heavier weight standard planchet of 13.36 grams. The 1858-O issue was made with the new, lighter weight standard of planchet at 12.44 grams. Even on a well worn, dateless or damaged example like yours, the distinction can be quickly made by observing weight alone.
Aside from that simple point, according to Wiley & Bugert the 5 in date on the 3 known examples of 1853-O N/A is slanted style; the same digit on 1858-O is upright. Hope that clarifies the issue.

Frankcoins

The 5 in the date is slanted on the 1853-O no arrows. The 5 is upright on the 1858, and on your coin.

Kaelasdad

The weight is 11.6

I knew there was a simple, logical answer to this, thanks to all who helped, and showed the style that I enjoy on these boards. It would appear that the digits were inconsistent in 1858, fat, thin--but weight wins every time.

DorkGirl

I love these learning threads!!

leothelyon