Options
Question on authenticity of $2 1/2 Liberty
jwitten
Posts: 5,325 ✭✭✭✭✭
I mainly collect $2 1/s Indians, but have a few Liberties as well. Does anyone have any thoughts on this coin? It is a rarer date, which is why I am nervous about a raw purchase. I realize obscuring the date and mint mark make it harder to determine, but I want it to remain somewhat anonymous. 
0
Comments
Date and mintmark placement are going to go a long way to helping you receive a solid answer.
Latin American Collection
Knowing the date might change my opinion, but it looks like it's probably good.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Covering the date and the mint mark does make it harder for authentication from photographs. The branch mints have certain characteristics that make them easier to authenticate, but those differences vary from year to year. Not all Charlotte, Dahlonega and New Orleans Mint coins were poorly made. Some of them were quite nice.
Until you are willing to so more, there is not much we can do for you. The mint mark could be added or glued on. All of these things are possible, but they can't be determined from your photo.
I agree, I just don't want competition buying it
What is everyone's thoughts on new vs old reverse? The O in Of makes it look like an old reverse, but the thinness and sharpness of the shield and arrows make it look like new reverse.
old reverse, lack of definitions on the arrows and the style of the 1 in "1/2" which is why it is likely an O mint or a pre 1862 S mint. Doesn't have the low of a Charlotte or Dahlonega coin. Also looks like it could be cleaned at some point.
Latin American Collection
Check out the left side of the shield. On almost every old reverse I have seen it looks "mushy"... this one is a lot more defined than any other example I have seen. That is what is making me question this coin.
If the base coin is a counterfeit, it's a well made one. I don't see the "fatty letters," mushy devises or lumps that you often see on bad gold pieces. That might narrow it down to an added mint mark counterfeit, which leads us back to square one.
Looks authentic...but without the date and mm there can be no conclusive answer. Cheers, RickO
According to Breen, several post-1859 San Francisco quarter eagles still had the "old" reverse.
Now that I've researched it a little bit more, I've changed my mind. I believe it is genuine.
Compare to this one: ebay.com/itm/172138429742
Not an expert but my grade would be Genuine, cleaned details AU/MS (hard to tell from the pic)
I don't see anything conclusive that have it come back as "cleaned." There are no big hairline patterns and it doesn't look polished.
That one has the same sharpness on the shield, so I am now also leaning towards genuine. the price is above what I am willing to gamble at, so I will go ahead and post the pics.
unquestionably the Old Reverse
Luster looks odd (flat) in the pics to me - that was my reason for saying cleaned. Could just be the pics.
I don't think it looks cleaned but I do think it has some wear (i.e. Hair below Liberty in the obverse, the brow , etc)
Pictured coin may not be cleaned but does not look particularly original.
Old reverse was used by San Francisco mint thru 1876.
If it were a raw 1861-S, 1862-S or 1863-S I might take a chance. 1868-S is commonly available. I would pass.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/liberty-head-2-1-gold-major-sets/liberty-head-2-1-gold-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1840-1907-cac/alltimeset/268163
March of Time - 27 Centuries in Gold
https://coins.www.collectors-society.com/WCM/CoinCustomSetView.aspx?s=36590
Why take a chance on a raw gold coin 30+ years into the slab era?
Why not? Those are some of my best purchases, including 3 1911-D Indians bought as plain 1911.