Not genuine, but the pics are so bad I cannot tell if just the mint mark is fake or the entire coin.
Professional Numismatist, Retired. 55 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner of the PNG's 2026 Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
But I would need better pics to say with absolute certainty that it's fake. Still, I suggest avoiding the coin (if you were ever interested in bidding).
Can you contact the seller and ask for blurrier photos?
He has several photos of the coin -- all quite blurry -- but I think they could still be blurrier. I can still make out the date.
Seriously, we would need better photos to have a shot at determining authenticity.
Proceed with caution.
Dave Wnuck. Redbook contributor; long time PNG Member; listed on the PCGS Board of Experts. PM me with your email address to receive my e-newsletter, and visit DaveWcoins.com Find me on eBay at davewcoins
<< <i>The second C on this one looks higher. Looking at my WB book. They are even. >>
Looking at CoinFacts, I believe there were at least two reverse dies used for this date, both with different mintmark placements.
I'm not saying I think the eBay coin is legit, but just that comparing one coin's mintmark placement to that of another coin is not always the best way to determine authenticity. Now if a certain type of coin was struck using only one reverse die for that date, then mintmark placement could be used to conclude whether it's real or not.
Busthalfbrian - You are correct. I should not of been so quick. This time I pulled out the Registry by Bugert. And there are 3 reverses - and on the 3rd reverse the second C is high.
<< <i>Not genuine, but the pics are so bad I cannot tell if just the mint mark is fake or the entire coin. >>
Yes another out of focus picture for an expensive coin ...
We see this pattern time and time again.
You can take this one to the bank. If the photography sucks the piece offered probably sucks too ... in a VERY BIG way.
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 ... ?
The mm may very well look ok if it's a transfer die copy. Image is just fuzzy enough to obscure crucial details. funny that all pix are fuzzy to the same degree! Looks like a pirate ship with red flags flying along w/skull and crossbones. Aaaarh!
Look at the 7 and 0 in the date. The 7 is much smaller than on a genuine 1870-CC, and both the 7 and 0 are bolder and slightly different in font character than the 1 and 8.
<< <i>Look at the 7 and 0 in the date. The 7 is much smaller than on a genuine 1870-CC, and both the 7 and 0 are bolder and slightly different in font character than the 1 and 8. >>
I picked up on that before I saw the reverse......yes, I agree.
bob
Registry: CC lowballs (boblindstrom), bobinvegas1989@yahoo.com
Comments
added mintmark or mintmarks
does it increase in value going from charlotte to carson city?
.
But I would need better pics to say with absolute certainty that it's fake. Still, I suggest avoiding the coin (if you were ever interested in bidding).
He has several photos of the coin -- all quite blurry -- but I think they could still be blurrier. I can still make out the date.
Seriously, we would need better photos to have a shot at determining authenticity.
Proceed with caution.
<< <i>The second C on this one looks higher. Looking at my WB book. They are even. >>
Looking at CoinFacts, I believe there were at least two reverse dies used for this date, both with different mintmark placements.
I'm not saying I think the eBay coin is legit, but just that comparing one coin's mintmark placement to that of another coin is not always the best way to determine authenticity. Now if a certain type of coin was struck using only one reverse die for that date, then mintmark placement could be used to conclude whether it's real or not.
It usually provides you a very good clue.
In this case, if you're thinking 'genuine', then you better think again.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
<< <i>Just reading the back "story" makes me think fake. >>
Ya think?
<< <i>Not genuine, but the pics are so bad I cannot tell if just the mint mark is fake or the entire coin. >>
Yes another out of focus picture for an expensive coin ...
We see this pattern time and time again.
You can take this one to the bank. If the photography sucks the piece offered probably sucks too ... in a VERY BIG way.
<< <i>Look at the 7 and 0 in the date. The 7 is much smaller than on a genuine 1870-CC, and both the 7 and 0 are bolder and slightly different in font character than the 1 and 8. >>
I picked up on that before I saw the reverse......yes, I agree.
bob
bob