I wonder why indian head cent varieties bring such money but varieties from other series do not? >>
IHC are on of the most collected series and are an old school corner stone of the hobby. That said the 88/7 is a old error that has captured peoples attention being in the red book while never being found in any real numbers.
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.
Is that the top of the 7 sticking out next to the 8 on the right? I saw that in your first post but never would have guessed at its rarity. Jealous, but in awe.
Congratulations, nice score and I will go ahead and say that this pick should be classified as a unanimous "YOU SUCK" award. I am truly "verdigris" with envy !!!
Great find, Rick! From languishing in an ebay listing to somebody's prize coin. The thrill of discovery can happen in many ways, and this is a cool one. Thanks for taking us through the full process, including the cleanup/stabilization and your great photos.
$47.00 is a lot to pay for a group of four scruffy looking Indians that look like those,unless of course,unlike you,the winner doesn't know what he or she is really looking at.
Mr. Snow,what would you have done if the seller had substituted a decidedly nicer condition 1888 coin to replace the "prize?"
The seller's logic could be that the one coin just doesn't measure up to the other three for $47 so "why don't I give the buyer a little more for his money?"
"Ah,yes.I knew I had more than one '88 around.Here's a better one for him."
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
AS I said in the previous thread, a great cherrypick! I was wondering how you could tell it was a S-1 without being able to clearly see the "8/7" in the date in the photo, but now that you mention the cud, I can see why you where sure of what it was. Again, congratulations!
<< <i>That is such a cool story. It is stories like this that keep me looking!
I think you deserve a "You Suck Award" >>
Definitely a "YOU SUCK OF THE YEAR!" candidate!
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>Thanks all! Yes, the verdigris on the surface looked like it may have been a problem, which is why I didn't snipe it for $8,000.
I soaked it in Blue Ribbon Coin preserver to remove it, and luckily, it was not into the coin.
>>
SHAZAM!!!!!!!
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>I still remain unconvinced that variety is an overdate. Anyone got that old thread with tons of pics? >>
I have no trouble accepting this variety as an overdate.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
How about if it is an overdate does it really matter, hardly anything to be seen and no one knows how many are out there since most wouldn't even know they had one. I won't be forking out $10k for an example like this any time soon that is for sure. Another example of what turns me off about the hobby of ours.
Alan, except when it happens to you, like the 1858/7 S7 MS-65 you cherrypicked in 2006.
someone is keeping records on the numbers found/discovered of the 1888/7.
<< <i>How about if it is an overdate does it really matter, hardly anything to be seen and no one knows how many are out there since most wouldn't even know they had one. I won't be forking out $10k for an example like this any time soon that is for sure. Another example of what turns me off about the hobby of ours.
Alan, except when it happens to you, like the 1858/7 S7 MS-65 you cherrypicked in 2006. >>
Ouch! That'll leave a mark!
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>Great job! I bet the sellers was pleased with the $47. bid. This shows us what to look for now. >>
Until they see this thread at least!!! >>
yeah, no kidding >>
I would only be upset with myself for not finding that one if I sold it. I know I have gone through every wheat cent and memorial cent I have to see if they are the varieties listed in the red book because that is my only reference for cents. I don't have an IHC book so I guess if I sold that coin I would only have myself to blame. For all I know, I have sold one of them
So, how exactly did this error come about? I think: Back in 1888, a mint employee, hammer in hand, grabbed the wrong punch (for whatever reason), whacked it once on the die before realizing he was holding a "7", then finished it off with an "8". Or perhaps this is the result of a hardening test, like numerals in the denticles? Regardless, it's amazing that little mistakes like these end up being bought and sold and talked about so much a century and a half later.
I still remain unconvinced that variety is an overdate. Anyone got that old thread with tons of pics?
I wonder if that "what appears to be the lowest part of a '7'" is in precisely the right location for this variety to be an overdate.If that feature were on other 1888 cents but without the cud at 9 o'clock,calling the coin an overdate,8 over 7,would be easier,speaking for myself only,to accept.The only evidence of a possible '7' being under the eight is that little blob on the outside south-southwest corner of the second 8.
It may be that there is such a thing as 1888 IHC, 8 over 7, sans the cud and I'm just ignorant about it.
I do not have Snow's book to refer to nor have I ever seen or heard of this so-called overdate sans the cud at 9 o'clock.
Look closely at the extreme close-up of the "88." Is that a remnant of a "7" jutting out from the second 8 on the outside northeast corner?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>So, how exactly did this error come about? I think: Back in 1888, a mint employee, hammer in hand, grabbed the wrong punch (for whatever reason), whacked it once on the die before realizing he was holding a "7", then finished it off with an "8". Or perhaps this is the result of a hardening test, like numerals in the denticles? Regardless, it's amazing that little mistakes like these end up being bought and sold and talked about so much a century and a half later. >>
The Mint may have been on an economy kick around this time. You have an 1881/0 $5 die known, several different 1883/2 nickel dies known, two different 1887/6 Morgan dollar dies known, and two different 1887/6 three cent nickel dies known. As late as 1901 you had a 1901/0 $5 die created.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Rick, this is an amazing pick, that's for sure - congratulations!!!
<< <i>Look closely at the extreme close-up of the "88." Is that a remnant of a "7" jutting out from the second 8 on the outside northeast corner? >>
It's hard to see in Rick's photo, but if you look closely, the tip of top part of the 7 is evident on the top left corner of the second 8. There is a better photo of it in Rick's Attribution Guide. Depending on the die state, the 9:00 obverse cud does not appear on all 1888/87 Indian cents, but when it does, it's a very good determining diagnostic.
The MS-64RB example above would likely sell for $250,000 today. Yes, that little blob of bronze under the 8 is probably the most expensive piece of metal known. It was first publicized by Dave Bowers back in 1970. Made front-page headlines and none were found for many years. The first ones found (there were two) sold for $4,950 each in 1971. Julian got one of them.
Once it gets listed in the Red Book and collectors can't find any, it's "aura" or rarity builds. Today, a G-6 is a $3,000 coin.
The mind just loves to fill in the blanks and see what it wants to see.
As discussed in the other thread:
how can the tail and the point of a 7 be so strong yet no other trace of anything elsewhere? Where is the other point of the 7? Where is the lower bar of the 7? And why does an overlay not line up for the so called point and the blob representing the tail?
<< <i>The mind just loves to fill in the blanks and see what it wants to see. As discussed in the other thread: how can the tail and the point of a 7 be so strong yet no other trace of anything elsewhere? Where is the other point of the 7? Where is the lower bar of the 7? And why does an overlay not line up for the so called point and the blob representing the tail? >>
i'm not fueling the fire nor arguing whether this is in fact an 8/7 but i will say for anyone that has used small punches it is extremely difficult to have them be perfectly flat. i often items lean to one side or the other.
an 8/7 looks very different than a 7/8 or a 3/2 or 2/3 etc. the following images may look raised but since i punched them can assure you they are not. also it was much easier to punch mine.
notice the uneven strike of the 3/2 or is it a 2/3? only part of the 2 is showing.
i'll make some more mock-ups in the future and be more organized.
enjoy. - a lincoln cent was harmed during this process
<< <i>The mind just loves to fill in the blanks and see what it wants to see. As discussed in the other thread: how can the tail and the point of a 7 be so strong yet no other trace of anything elsewhere? Where is the other point of the 7? Where is the lower bar of the 7? And why does an overlay not line up for the so called point and the blob representing the tail? >>
i'm not fueling the fire nor arguing whether this is in fact an 8/7 but i will say for anyone that has used small punches it is extremely difficult to have them be perfectly flat. i often items lean to one side or the other.
an 8/7 looks very different than a 7/8 or a 3/2 or 2/3 etc. the following images may look raised but since i punched them can assure you they are not. also it was much easier to punch mine.
notice the uneven strike of the 3/2 or is it a 2/3? only part of the 2 is showing.
i'll make some more mock-ups in the future and be more organized.
enjoy. - a lincoln cent was harmed during this process
>>
You did have people punching dates who did that for a living. Chances are they were better at it than you or I would be.
Then there is Del Romines theory that the Mint was using some sort of a date punch alignment mechanism in this era. I am not convinced that it did, but it is plausible.
The 1888/7 Snow-1 cent shows the tail of the 7 outside the 8 and the upper left serif of the 7 outside the 8. Similar remnants can be found on various 1880/79 Morgan silver dollars, some of which show no remnants of the 7 INSIDE the 8.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>Then there is Del Romines theory that the Mint was using some sort of a date punch alignment mechanism in this era. I am not convinced that it did, but it is plausible. TD >>
i've spent a bit of time on this and some of the over-dates do strongly suggest something like this, especially for those 4 number over-dates as well as inverted dates.
hard-pressed to believe someone would punch 4 digits in a row in error, but certainly plausible. an extensive study of these i'm sure would yield some interesting results.
i know i'd sure read some material on the research unless i was the one who wrote it .
<< <i>$47.00 is a lot to pay for a group of four scruffy looking Indians that look like those,unless of course,unlike you,the winner doesn't know what he or she is really looking at.
Mr. Snow,what would you have done if the seller had substituted a decidedly nicer condition 1888 coin to replace the "prize?"
The seller's logic could be that the one coin just doesn't measure up to the other three for $47 so "why don't I give the buyer a little more for his money?"
"Ah,yes.I knew I had more than one '88 around.Here's a better one for him." >>
Just catching up on this thread, I missed it the first time around. I had something like the above happen to me a few months ago, also on an Indian cent. I cherrypicked a low grade 1887 DDO out of a run of auctions for the same date by a single seller. He decided to send me the nicest of the ones listed instead of the actual coin. I gently requested that he send the coin from the photos and offered to return the "nicer" coin at my cost, and he acquiesced. I'm just happy he didn't ask me why I preferred the corroded coin over the one he sent me.
Sean Reynolds
Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
<< <i>$47.00 is a lot to pay for a group of four scruffy looking Indians that look like those,unless of course,unlike you,the winner doesn't know what he or she is really looking at.
Mr. Snow,what would you have done if the seller had substituted a decidedly nicer condition 1888 coin to replace the "prize?"
The seller's logic could be that the one coin just doesn't measure up to the other three for $47 so "why don't I give the buyer a little more for his money?"
"Ah,yes.I knew I had more than one '88 around.Here's a better one for him." >>
Just catching up on this thread, I missed it the first time around. I had something like the above happen to me a few months ago, also on an Indian cent. I cherrypicked a low grade 1887 DDO out of a run of auctions for the same date by a single seller. He decided to send me the nicest of the ones listed instead of the actual coin. I gently requested that he send the coin from the photos and offered to return the "nicer" coin at my cost, and he acquiesced. I'm just happy he didn't ask me why I preferred the corroded coin over the one he sent me.
Sean Reynolds >>
Or, worse yet, when I cherrypicked a nice VF original Seated quarter variety from eBay, the seller (who normally sold jewelry) decided to polish the heck out of it rather than send me the coin as is, with all of that original dirt. Coin looked like someone had used a pencil eraser on it, but worse.
Still made over $1,000 on the coin, but would have made over $3,000 without the polishing.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Comments
Nice score, congrats!
Wish I could come across some "junk" like that.
<< <i>congrats on selling it for 10k!........
I wonder why indian head cent varieties bring such money but varieties from other series do not? >>
IHC are on of the most collected series and are an old school corner stone of the hobby. That said the 88/7 is a old error that has captured peoples attention being in the red book while never being found in any real numbers.
-Wes
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.
LOL and now anyone who posted an 1888 Cent is wondering how come 2000 people have looked at their coin....
WS
Empty Nest Collection
Matt’s Mattes
I am truly "verdigris" with envy !!!
From languishing in an ebay listing to somebody's prize coin.
The thrill of discovery can happen in many ways, and this is a cool one.
Thanks for taking us through the full process, including the cleanup/stabilization and your great photos.
Mr. Snow,what would you have done if the seller had substituted a decidedly nicer condition 1888 coin to replace the "prize?"
The seller's logic could be that the one coin just doesn't measure up to the other three for $47 so "why don't I give the buyer a little more for his money?"
"Ah,yes.I knew I had more than one '88 around.Here's a better one for him."
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I'll offer my congratulations and an emphatic, "YOU SUCK!"
<< <i>That is such a cool story. It is stories like this that keep me looking!
I think you deserve a "You Suck Award" >>
Definitely a "YOU SUCK OF THE YEAR!" candidate!
<< <i>Thanks all! Yes, the verdigris on the surface looked like it may have been a problem, which is why I didn't snipe it for $8,000.
I soaked it in Blue Ribbon Coin preserver to remove it, and luckily, it was not into the coin.
SHAZAM!!!!!!!
<< <i>That's a great story! WTG, Rick. Clearly, a YOU SUCK.
I must say, it sure cleaned up nicely. Blue Ribbon is one of the Sniffer-hated substances. Good thing PCGS didn't use it.
Lance. >>
Does it leave residue or can that residue be removed with other solvents?
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
<< <i>
<< <i>That's a great story! WTG, Rick. Clearly, a YOU SUCK.
I must say, it sure cleaned up nicely. Blue Ribbon is one of the Sniffer-hated substances. Good thing PCGS didn't use it.
Lance. >>
Does it leave residue or can that residue be removed with other solvents? >>
Pretty sure the residue would be removed by acetone.
Lance.
<< <i>I still remain unconvinced that variety is an overdate. Anyone got that old thread with tons of pics? >>
I have no trouble accepting this variety as an overdate.
TD
Add to that, I should really read more.
Empty Nest Collection
Matt’s Mattes
I TOTALLY AGREE!!!!
For some reason a few people out here are that way about varieties!
Eric
Another example of what turns me off about the hobby of ours.
Alan, except when it happens to you, like the 1858/7 S7 MS-65 you cherrypicked in 2006.
someone is keeping records on the numbers found/discovered of the 1888/7.
1888/7 S1 - Just the top examples. Overall there are probably 75 examples known.
<< <i>How about if it is an overdate does it really matter, hardly anything to be seen and no one knows how many are out there since most wouldn't even know they had one. I won't be forking out $10k for an example like this any time soon that is for sure.
Another example of what turns me off about the hobby of ours.
Alan, except when it happens to you, like the 1858/7 S7 MS-65 you cherrypicked in 2006. >>
Ouch! That'll leave a mark!
That is TREMENDOUS!
<< <i>
<< <i>Great job! I bet the sellers was pleased with the $47. bid. This shows us what to look for now. >>
Until they see this thread at least!!! >>
yeah, no kidding
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Great job! I bet the sellers was pleased with the $47. bid. This shows us what to look for now. >>
Until they see this thread at least!!! >>
yeah, no kidding
I would only be upset with myself for not finding that one if I sold it. I know I have gone through every wheat cent and memorial cent I have to see if they are the varieties listed in the red book because that is my only reference for cents. I don't have an IHC book so I guess if I sold that coin I would only have myself to blame. For all I know, I have sold one of them
Ignorance is bliss
Empty Nest Collection
Matt’s Mattes
I wonder if that "what appears to be the lowest part of a '7'" is in precisely the right location for this variety to be an overdate.If that feature were on other 1888 cents but without the cud at 9 o'clock,calling the coin an overdate,8 over 7,would be easier,speaking for myself only,to accept.The only evidence of a possible '7' being under the eight is that little blob on the outside south-southwest corner of the second 8.
It may be that there is such a thing as 1888 IHC, 8 over 7, sans the cud and I'm just ignorant about it.
I do not have Snow's book to refer to nor have I ever seen or heard of this so-called overdate sans the cud at 9 o'clock.
Look closely at the extreme close-up of the "88." Is that a remnant of a "7" jutting out from the second 8 on the outside northeast corner?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>So, how exactly did this error come about? I think: Back in 1888, a mint employee, hammer in hand, grabbed the wrong punch (for whatever reason), whacked it once on the die before realizing he was holding a "7", then finished it off with an "8". Or perhaps this is the result of a hardening test, like numerals in the denticles? Regardless, it's amazing that little mistakes like these end up being bought and sold and talked about so much a century and a half later. >>
The Mint may have been on an economy kick around this time. You have an 1881/0 $5 die known, several different 1883/2 nickel dies known, two different 1887/6 Morgan dollar dies known, and two different 1887/6 three cent nickel dies known. As late as 1901 you had a 1901/0 $5 die created.
TD
<< <i>Look closely at the extreme close-up of the "88." Is that a remnant of a "7" jutting out from the second 8 on the outside northeast corner? >>
It's hard to see in Rick's photo, but if you look closely, the tip of top part of the 7 is evident on the top left corner of the second 8. There is a better photo of it in Rick's Attribution Guide. Depending on the die state, the 9:00 obverse cud does not appear on all 1888/87 Indian cents, but when it does, it's a very good determining diagnostic.
https://thepennylady.com/
The MS-64RB example above would likely sell for $250,000 today. Yes, that little blob of bronze under the 8 is probably the most expensive piece of metal known. It was first publicized by Dave Bowers back in 1970. Made front-page headlines and none were found for many years. The first ones found (there were two) sold for $4,950 each in 1971. Julian got one of them.
Once it gets listed in the Red Book and collectors can't find any, it's "aura" or rarity builds. Today, a G-6 is a $3,000 coin.
<< <i>Congrats! That's what expertise can do! >>
No, he didn't do that, somebody else made that happen!
Ike Specialist
Finest Toned Ike I've Ever Seen, been looking since 1986
As discussed in the other thread:
how can the tail and the point of a 7 be so strong yet no other trace of anything elsewhere? Where is the other point of the 7? Where is the lower bar of the 7? And why does an overlay not line up for the so called point and the blob representing the tail?
<< <i>The mind just loves to fill in the blanks and see what it wants to see.
As discussed in the other thread:
how can the tail and the point of a 7 be so strong yet no other trace of anything elsewhere? Where is the other point of the 7? Where is the lower bar of the 7? And why does an overlay not line up for the so called point and the blob representing the tail? >>
i'm not fueling the fire nor arguing whether this is in fact an 8/7 but i will say for anyone that has used small punches it is extremely difficult to have them be perfectly flat. i often items lean to one side or the other.
an 8/7 looks very different than a 7/8 or a 3/2 or 2/3 etc. the following images may look raised but since i punched them can assure you they are not. also it was much easier to punch mine.
notice the uneven strike of the 3/2 or is it a 2/3? only part of the 2 is showing.
i'll make some more mock-ups in the future and be more organized.
enjoy. - a lincoln cent was harmed during this process
<< <i>
<< <i>The mind just loves to fill in the blanks and see what it wants to see.
As discussed in the other thread:
how can the tail and the point of a 7 be so strong yet no other trace of anything elsewhere? Where is the other point of the 7? Where is the lower bar of the 7? And why does an overlay not line up for the so called point and the blob representing the tail? >>
i'm not fueling the fire nor arguing whether this is in fact an 8/7 but i will say for anyone that has used small punches it is extremely difficult to have them be perfectly flat. i often items lean to one side or the other.
an 8/7 looks very different than a 7/8 or a 3/2 or 2/3 etc. the following images may look raised but since i punched them can assure you they are not. also it was much easier to punch mine.
notice the uneven strike of the 3/2 or is it a 2/3? only part of the 2 is showing.
i'll make some more mock-ups in the future and be more organized.
enjoy. - a lincoln cent was harmed during this process
You did have people punching dates who did that for a living. Chances are they were better at it than you or I would be.
Then there is Del Romines theory that the Mint was using some sort of a date punch alignment mechanism in this era. I am not convinced that it did, but it is plausible.
The 1888/7 Snow-1 cent shows the tail of the 7 outside the 8 and the upper left serif of the 7 outside the 8. Similar remnants can be found on various 1880/79 Morgan silver dollars, some of which show no remnants of the 7 INSIDE the 8.
TD
<< <i>Then there is Del Romines theory that the Mint was using some sort of a date punch alignment mechanism in this era. I am not convinced that it did, but it is plausible.
TD >>
i've spent a bit of time on this and some of the over-dates do strongly suggest something like this, especially for those 4 number over-dates as well as inverted dates.
hard-pressed to believe someone would punch 4 digits in a row in error, but certainly plausible. an extensive study of these i'm sure would yield some interesting results.
i know i'd sure read some material on the research unless i was the one who wrote it
.
<< <i>I still remain unconvinced that variety is an overdate. Anyone got that old thread with tons of pics? >>
I remember that thread. Seems to me that it is more likely a die chip. However, if the masses are convinced otherwise, it becomes a variety!
<< <i>$47.00 is a lot to pay for a group of four scruffy looking Indians that look like those,unless of course,unlike you,the winner doesn't know what he or she is really looking at.
Mr. Snow,what would you have done if the seller had substituted a decidedly nicer condition 1888 coin to replace the "prize?"
The seller's logic could be that the one coin just doesn't measure up to the other three for $47 so "why don't I give the buyer a little more for his money?"
"Ah,yes.I knew I had more than one '88 around.Here's a better one for him." >>
Just catching up on this thread, I missed it the first time around. I had something like the above happen to me a few months ago, also on an Indian cent. I cherrypicked a low grade 1887 DDO out of a run of auctions for the same date by a single seller. He decided to send me the nicest of the ones listed instead of the actual coin. I gently requested that he send the coin from the photos and offered to return the "nicer" coin at my cost, and he acquiesced. I'm just happy he didn't ask me why I preferred the corroded coin over the one he sent me.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
<< <i>
<< <i>$47.00 is a lot to pay for a group of four scruffy looking Indians that look like those,unless of course,unlike you,the winner doesn't know what he or she is really looking at.
Mr. Snow,what would you have done if the seller had substituted a decidedly nicer condition 1888 coin to replace the "prize?"
The seller's logic could be that the one coin just doesn't measure up to the other three for $47 so "why don't I give the buyer a little more for his money?"
"Ah,yes.I knew I had more than one '88 around.Here's a better one for him." >>
Just catching up on this thread, I missed it the first time around. I had something like the above happen to me a few months ago, also on an Indian cent. I cherrypicked a low grade 1887 DDO out of a run of auctions for the same date by a single seller. He decided to send me the nicest of the ones listed instead of the actual coin. I gently requested that he send the coin from the photos and offered to return the "nicer" coin at my cost, and he acquiesced. I'm just happy he didn't ask me why I preferred the corroded coin over the one he sent me.
Sean Reynolds >>
Or, worse yet, when I cherrypicked a nice VF original Seated quarter variety from eBay, the seller (who normally sold jewelry) decided to polish the heck out of it rather than send me the coin as is, with all of that original dirt. Coin looked like someone had used a pencil eraser on it, but worse.
Still made over $1,000 on the coin, but would have made over $3,000 without the polishing.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Box of 20