What do you think? 1856 Flying Eagle Cent.

Type2

northcoin

Nice. A key date that is hard to find in such decent shape outside of a TPG slab. The honest feather wear probably keeps it from being AU but still a coin I would be proud to own, assuming it is genuine.

WingedLiberty1957

If that was my coin, I would submit it to PCGS pronto to make sure it wasn't counterfeit and to protect it from dings, fingerprints, and wear. Not saying it is fake, but I am always suspicious of rare coins that are raw. The counterfeiters are just too good these days. If it's real, I like it!

BustHalfBrian

Tough sell... I'm just not convinced this one's good. But keep in mind, this is not my series.

The surfaces just look so smooth and "perfect", free of abrasions you'd normally see for coins of this grade. But I reiterate, this IS NOT my series - I just, personally, would not feel comfortable enough purchasing the coin w/out proper authentication.

Steve27

Really nice coin, but it might have been treated to remove verdigris.

jmcu12

I vote genuine - from the pics i think the 'OF' looks like it should. But Rick will probably chime in at some point.

magikbilly

It appears to have the diagnostics - the tip of the 5, the AM, the denticles in the right spots, the inner shape of the lower part of the 8, the middle serif of the "F"...but...the "C" serif looks a bit odd.
The 6 though appears a bit off.
In hand would be easier. Surfaces odd.
If I had to guess I'd say clever fake (best to err on side of caution unless feeling certain, and I am not).


Eric

Edit to add: Bottom interior space (under "ball end") and "ball end" of "5" looks wrong - straight bit seems present but not the angle bit under. "6" looks wrong (interior shape) as I study more - top seems too high, shape also wrong. Some upper neck feathers seem wrong. "O" top looks wrong; several letters seem wrong shape/detals. I'll say fake now. Final answer.

TwoSides2aCoin

I don't think much of it. Although I would like to have one someday... it would never be that one.

ricko

Going against the popular opinion here... I think it is genuine...Cheers, RickO

magikbilly

Interior closed space of "6" on OP coin has squarish horseshoe shaped bottom - others have rounded shape. Serif in "I" appears different - others have serifs uneven in length while OP coin "I" serif is even length both sides. Negative space in lower portion of "A" in States seems of different proportion that gen examples.

I have been comparing enlargements - op coin zoomd in with CRTL and scroll - and gen examples at NGC and other.

Eric

guitarwes

I think I'm not that brave.

steveben

<< <i>Really nice coin, but it might have been treated to remove verdigris. >>



i think so

OldEastside

Looks good to me..........but I don't no s%*@.....I don't like
the color though, BUT, it does seem to be consistant with
the coinfacts pieces in the diagnostics. I would rather see
it wearing PCGS's latest spring lineup though.

Steve

daOnlyBG

My knowledge about this series is also limited, but I thought I'd add this: the toning looks a wee bit suspicious to me. Whereas the fields are dark brown, the remaining details on the coin are sharply "lit." If this is common for that series, disregard my post- if not, then I think it may have been dipped at one point.

magikbilly

Anyone else see what I am seeing? Do I need better glasses?
Of course the color looks odd - it was not my focus. Huge images and side by side comparison were were. Were multiple Obv. dies used to strike these 2000-3000?

It appears to have the diagnostics - the tip of the 5, the AM, the denticles in the right spots, the inner shape of the lower part of the 8, the middle serif of the "F"...but...the "C" serif looks a bit odd.
The 6 though appears a bit off.
In hand would be easier. Surfaces odd.
If I had to guess I'd say clever fake (best to err on side of caution unless feeling certain, and I am not).

Bottom interior space (under "ball end") and "ball end" of "5" looks wrong - straight bit seems present but not the angle bit under. "6" looks wrong (interior shape) as I study more - top seems too high, shape also wrong. Some upper neck feathers seem wrong. "O" top looks wrong; several letters seem wrong shape/details.

Interior closed space of "6" on OP coin has squarish horseshoe shaped bottom - others have rounded shape. Serif in "I" appears different - others have serifs uneven in length while OP coin "I" serif is even length both sides. Negative space in lower portion of "A" in States seems of different proportion that gen examples.

I have been comparing enlargements - op coin zoomd in with CRTL and scroll - and gen examples at NGC and other.



Eric

Edit to add observations in one shot.

nags

I didn't do the analysis as magikbilly, but the coin just looks off to me.

northcoin

<< <i>If that was my coin, I would submit it to PCGS pronto to make sure it wasn't counterfeit and to protect it from dings, fingerprints, and wear. Not saying it is fake, but I am always suspicious of rare coins that are raw. The counterfeiters are just too good these days. If it's real, I like it! >>



Excellent advice but of course I am guessing the OP already knows since the question posed was not whether it was genuine or not. Do report back.

Type2

Well it's off to are host. I will let every one know when it get back.

ebaytrader

Nice!

magikbilly

<< <i>Well it's off to are host. I will let every one know when it get back. >>



Hi Type 2

You have no opinion at all? Maybe I do need new glasses!

Eric

johnny9434

<< <i>

<< <i>Really nice coin, but it might have been treated to remove verdigris. >>



i think so >>

it kinda looks it somewhat

OldEastside

Well Magikbilly has swayed some caution my way,
looking at it closer, particularly at the E in ONE
on the reverse (how many reverse dies were used
in 1856???) The serifs in the E seem more squared
off and apear to be touching each other on the Coin
Facts 56's, but not on this one.

Like I said before I don't know S#*%, so this is the
lesson of the day

Steve

telephoto1

It looks genuine to me. The diagnostics all appear to be there. Suggest sending it in for conservation to remove the verdigris, after which it should go 45 in my opinion. Nice, scarce item worthy of any collection.

steveben

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>Really nice coin, but it might have been treated to remove verdigris. >>



i think so >>

it kinda looks it somewhat >>



which could explain:

1. why it's raw
2. the coloring

if so, that tends to give more credence to it's authenticity. it's hard to remove verdigris in those protected areas without damaging the coin.

nags

If you don't mind, where did the coin come from? If it's genuine it's a pretty darn valuable coin.

dcarr

What looks strange to me is the bright "halo" trailing off each letter and digit on the obverse (located between the characters and the denticles).
This may be an indication of some sort of "processing" done on the coin to hide a problem such as harsh cleaning, or (as some here have already said) verdegris.

EagleEye

XF-40. S-3?

Type2

<< <i>

<< <i>Well it's off to are host. I will let every one know when it get back. >>



Hi Type 2

You have no opinion at all? Maybe I do need new glasses!

Eric >>

This is a flip coin all i can hope for is it go in a holder. This one is out of a old complet set looks like a PR coin with the flat filds there was two dies one MS and one PR so i am hoping for a MS but you never know. If it grades i'm thinking VF/EF but i'm in it "G" money with a buyback if it does not go in a holder so it's a win win for me.

JRocco

Coin looks boinked.
I wish it were mine, but I wouldn't lay out too much dosh for it.

magikbilly

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>Well it's off to are host. I will let every one know when it get back. >>



Hi Type 2

You have no opinion at all? Maybe I do need new glasses!

Eric >>

This is a flip coin all i can hope for is it go in a holder. This one is out of a old complet set looks like a PR coin with the flat filds there was two dies one MS and one PR so i am hoping for a MS but you never know. If it grades i'm thinking VF/EF but i'm in it "G" money with a buyback if it does not go in a holder so it's a win win for me. >>



Cool I truly did not mean to slam your new 1856 1C Type Snow 3. I was only making some observations (recall the '95 "Proof" Morgan). Perhaps the wear will account. Rick Eagle Eye has spoken - by that I am guided. We shall see the determination soon. If I am wrong (likely, as markers seem present) well - I will learn even more!

Best,
Eric

JRocco

I hope she grades for you Type2.
But I think this one has been in a very smokey room.
The fields and rims do not match.
Best of luck to you though.

jedm

I predict it grades as a 45.

Type2

Thanks guys. I hope so as well but no bigie i can get my $$$$ back if i need to. I'll just be out my submission fee$ and i'm fine with that, magikbilly i did not think you where slaming me, I have thick skin you need it in this coin world it all go's over my head anyway.

HoledandCreative

That eagle looks like he is flying right off of the coin. A circ Proof, PF45 imo.

magikbilly

Of course, good luck!!! Hoping for Pr something.

Eric

magikbilly

I am, of course, hoping for the best for you. Truly interested in the outcome...keep us posted please.
I was just applying what I learned from the '95 NOT Proof Morgan and Julian's Isabella Pr (?) Commemorative among others. Until grade is in, I will (surprisingly?) stick to my previously stated opinion, Mr. Rick's Eagle Eye aside (and he woukld KNOW of course!). Good luck!
Dan Carr's opinion is also to be noted.

Best wishes always,
Eric

stealer

The odd peel-away toning as toning fanatics call it caused by the environmental damage gives it a funny look. I think it's kosher, though. You have so many interesting pieces T2...