Besides the date analysis already provided, I think all gennie 1799's have the forelock hair bump beyond the base of the 'T', to the right of it. This one looks to be too far left (at least from what I can discern from the photos of this corroded piece).
I recall some years ago informing the auctioneer at a small country auction that I believed the rough, low grade 1799 cent being offered in the current sale was a fake. He the informed the audience beforehand that the coin was of questionable authenticity. And it still went for $1100. Several months later I found out the coin was sent to ANACS and deemed a fake. People just love getting a 'deal'!
In a way $515.51 is not that big of a "bargain." At a recent Baltimore show I saw a crusty piece that was definitely a genuine 1799 cent, with the diagnostic mark on the reverse, trade for $1,650 between a cherry picker (a guy who goes around the floor looking for dealer errors and omissions) a bourse dealer. I could have the item for a modest advance above that.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
$515 is a lot less than $1600. I honestly do not think it is possible to buy an authentic one of those for less than $1500 for even the worst example. Even then it would take a while to find one. That is a TOUGH coin.
Generally speaking, that's correct, this one being an exception - cost me $one grand even, in a private treaty sale. I also acquired a '93 Lib Cap, both thick and thin planchet '95's, a choice VF 39/6, a VF30 15 stars 1817, and a few other nice morsels in that sale ~3 yrs ago.
Yes it's worn and damaged, but it's not corroded, and five different EAC guys told me it was genny.
. after a good nights sleep, i looked back over my images and started feeling a little insecure about my decision, so i did this to further emphasize & confim.
@Walkerguy21D said:
Generally speaking, that's correct, this one being an exception - cost me $one grand even, in a private treaty sale. I also acquired a '93 Lib Cap, both thick and thin planchet '95's, a choice VF 39/6, a VF30 15 stars 1817, and a few other nice morsels in that sale ~3 yrs ago.
Yes it's worn and damaged, but it's not corroded, and five different EAC guys told me it was genny.
Nope, but it sure fooled a lot of people.
Tom Reynolds uncovered it as a very good alteration.
The original seller also then had Bob Grellman (I think - since they are good acquaintances) further confirm it,
and then refunded my $ - at least 4 years after the sale!
Alltheabove76
Posts: 1,495 ✭✭✭
Comments
For a large selection of U.S. Coins & Currency, visit The Reeded Edge's online webstore at the link below.
The Reeded Edge
<< <i>I don't think the last 9 looks right. >>
Paul
it is 100% not the s-189
it is 100% not the s-188
it is 100% not the nc-1
only 3 known possibilities for 1799
either a 1798 or counterfeit and after looking at a few 98s, fake is a possibility
.
<< <i>.
it is 100% not the s-189
it is 100% not the s-188
it is 100% not the nc-1
only 3 known possibilities for 1799
either a 1798 or counterfeit and after looking at a few 98s, fake is a possibility
. >>
If a deal seems to good to be true...probably is.
My Early Large Cents
It's only "too good to be true" because it wasn't bid up.
If not for the expert(s) above I'd have agreed it is an authentic 1799.
peacockcoins
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
just so you can see exactly how i determined
in this scenario, the first 9 is the key to disproving the 1799
the date orientation of the OP coin also makes proving/disproving the 1798 just about as easy.
very long day tomorrow, a good thing, otherwise i'd prove/disprove the 1798/authenticity part.
i'm sure others here are more than equal to the task
forelock hair bump beyond the base of the 'T', to the right of it. This one looks to be too far left (at least from what I can discern
from the photos of this corroded piece).
I recall some years ago informing the auctioneer at a small country auction that I believed the rough, low grade 1799 cent being offered
in the current sale was a fake.
He the informed the audience beforehand that the coin was of questionable authenticity. And it still went for $1100. Several months later
I found out the coin was sent to ANACS and deemed a fake. People just love getting a 'deal'!
My Early Large Cents
Yes it's worn and damaged, but it's not corroded, and five different EAC guys told me it was genny.
My Early Large Cents
after a good nights sleep, i looked back over my images and started feeling a little insecure about my decision, so i did this to further emphasize & confim.
This is a 1799 large cent
Nope, but it sure fooled a lot of people.
Tom Reynolds uncovered it as a very good alteration.
The original seller also then had Bob Grellman (I think - since they are good acquaintances) further confirm it,
and then refunded my $ - at least 4 years after the sale!