1793 chain cent - real?

This coin is on another forum looking to be verified as real. I'm curious what the experts here think. 






"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H.L. Mencken
0
Comments
type2,CCHunter.
i would prefer better images so i won't go 100% either way, but i will say
90% not authentic. reverse lettering doesn't match imo
.
peacockcoins
Coin Rarities Online
<< <i>I wouldn't touch it - to me it has the look of intentionally inflicted damage (of the sort used to obliterate words like COPY). >>
Agree. Perhaps it was a Gallery Mint artificially worn and aged to hide its orgins.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
<< <i>I wouldn't touch it - to me it has the look of intentionally inflicted damage (of the sort used to obliterate words like COPY). >>
Agree. Perhaps it was a Gallery Mint artificially worn and aged to hide its orgins. >>
That would be my #1 concern as well.
Not that I would have any idea.
<< <i>I wouldn't touch it - to me it has the look of intentionally inflicted damage (of the sort used to obliterate words like COPY). >>
I agree
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>I wouldn't touch it - to me it has the look of intentionally inflicted damage (of the sort used to obliterate words like COPY). >>
What JA said.
With a coin of high value if genuine, and no value if it is a damaged modern copy, why hasn't it been submitted to a grading service to find out which it is?
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>.
i would prefer better images so i won't go 100% either way, but i will say
90% not authentic. reverse lettering doesn't match imo
. >>
Could you say more about the lettering mismatch? Thanks!
<< <i>
<< <i>.
i would prefer better images so i won't go 100% either way, but i will say
90% not authentic. reverse lettering doesn't match imo
. >>
Could you say more about the lettering mismatch? Thanks! >>
with only 4 known die marriages (1 nc, so 5 total) for the usa chain cents, it is an easy comparison. the "n" is off. "one cent" is off. imo
my nc 1 image is not good enough for comparison. I will get one soon enough. - turns out i do have a high grade image for study, but it is smaller than i would like
also the obverse bust doesn't look spot on for what little is there.
i will end with "i would prefer better images" before committing 100% either way
.
since we are on the subject, i'll do a plug for the old coinfacts, yes coinfacts.com
i still use it and am constantly awed by the vast amount of information on those pages
the coin i linked to is not directly related to this discussion
hope you enjoy
.
I agree with comments on overly beat up chain
Also - I looked at some Chain Americas and did not like the profile of the face and forehead on this piece. The hair looked too "slicked back", more like Gallery Mint and the mouth appear a better match for GM. On the reverse - the real ones had UNITED further from the rim, on GM appeared closer. Iexpect that die marriage pros will pick it apart as well.
<< <i>Anyone who acquires a chain cent like this and relies on internet forums for authentication is kidding themselves. This is the exact kind of coin that Genuine slabs were designed for. They should send it in to PCGS and get a definitive answer! >>
It may not be worth the $38 certification fee.
The reverse legend lettering does not appear genuine to me. This is difficult, however, with the amount of wear and damage present.