S or O ?

ebaybuyer · March 9, 2015 10:11AM

link

I say O not S

Halfway · March 9, 2015 10:13AM

Looks S to me.

BustHalfBrian · March 9, 2015 10:13AM

My guess is O but it's open to interpretation.

PCGS would say "authenticity unverifiable"

ebaybuyer · March 9, 2015 10:21AM

too round to be an S and not tall enough, deceptive no doubt but not an S

Walkerfan · March 9, 2015 10:23AM

<< Looks S to me. >>

Walkerfan · March 9, 2015 10:25AM

<< too round to be an S and not tall enough, deceptive no doubt but not an S >>

It's in such poor condition that I wouldn't want it, in any event.

ebaybuyer · March 9, 2015 10:27AM

the 2nd and third pic give it away, focus on the shape of the outside of the mintmark, the fourth pic is tricky, but the S is tilted right, not left as it should be,

Unknown · March 9, 2015 10:39AM

This content has been removed.

hollowstar · March 9, 2015 10:48AM

The authentic S is somewhat rectangular. This looks too round to be the proper S.

DIMEMAN · March 9, 2015 11:26AM

It's an "S". Just really worn.

ebaybuyer · March 9, 2015 11:33AM

sorry, not an S

LindeDad · March 9, 2015 11:35AM

<< 

<< PCGS would say "authenticity unverifiable" >>

>>

DIMEMAN · March 9, 2015 11:57AM

It's definitely an "S". Not sure it's real. I tried to compare it to a pic of a 56-S on Gerry Fortin's site. The date looks right, but the coin is way too worn to be sure of anything.

Bottom line is I wouldn't buy it, but it probably is a 56-S.

ebaybuyer · March 9, 2015 12:02PM

I base my opinion on not only that the shape of "S" is incorrect, but that the date position is wrong for an 1856-S as well, my conclusion wasn't a guess, but rather knowledge of the series

DIMEMAN · March 9, 2015 12:08PM

Not sure how to take that last comment, but I have probably (no I have) looked at more Seated Dimes than you have. I do know the series!

roadrunner · March 9, 2015 12:16PM

Wonder if there's enough of the reeding left to do a count? A New Orleans coin would have 103 reeds while the S mint has 121. Very easy comparison. You can be sure the seller didn't check.

Looks "O" to me. And chances would favor a 56-s being plucked from circulation long before a 56-0.

ebaybuyer · March 9, 2015 12:32PM

"I have probably (no I have) looked at more Seated Dimes than you have" <<<< lol I doubt that very much, ive been studying seated dimes for the past 25 years, how long have you been collecting dimes ?

ebaybuyer · March 9, 2015 12:46PM

looks like the end of that conversation,

DIMEMAN · March 9, 2015 12:50PM

Try 50 years.

ebaybuyer · March 9, 2015 12:53PM

lol ok

ebaybuyer · March 9, 2015 1:13PM

im not gonna argue with anyone, based on the shape of the mintmark, and the date position, its not an 1856-S

DIMEMAN · March 9, 2015 1:18PM

I wasn't arguing. It's just so worn and without seeing it in hand.....I couldn't say for sure.

Either way it's a definite pass for me.

bigjpst · March 9, 2015 1:23PM

I think a couple of the pictures make it look like an S, but the last two pictures have me believing that it is an O. What would be the lower loop of the S looks to be the size of an O and what would be the upper loop and serif appear to be squished down.

ebaybuyer · March 9, 2015 1:25PM

im re-reading your responses and its sounds like you could and did say for sure, and you definitely were sure you have seen more seated dimes that I have, so if that isn't being argumentative what is it called ?

Christos · March 9, 2015 1:31PM

If you look at this date and compare it to the coin in question you will see that the 6 is in the same place on both coins. Take this image and do a split screen or an overlay and you will see the date line up as DIMEMAN has stated. If you look at the mint mark location on both coins it looks to be very close and someone could have put a partial S on the coin then pocketed it for a while to get the current look. Now all that being said the coin is so worn I would not want it either.

DIMEMAN · March 9, 2015 1:33PM

That was just a reflex response. I have been doing dimes since 1965. When Gerry Fortin did his survey to see who had the most Seated Dime varieties in 1990........I was 2nd to Gerry.

Sorry if I offended you.

ebaybuyer · March 9, 2015 1:42PM

im not offended, I began this post to educate the average collector who may not know any better, but just because the mintmark may look like an S doesn't mean it is, I didn't ask anyone if they wanted to buy the coin, that wasn't the point of the post, some people will only have enough funds for a coin like this, and id like to help them avoid making a mistake, I don't claim to be an expert, I realize that I havent looked at as many coins as some other people, the post somehow degraded into who has looked at more coins and whom would want the coin at that grade level, perhaps people should try to stay on the subject matter and not allow their ego to post responses.

Type2 · March 9, 2015 1:44PM

Looks like a "O" and the 5 in the date is not slanted like a "S" minted coin.

ebaybuyer · March 9, 2015 1:46PM

the date positions are similar, but the date is level on the ebay coin and slanting noticeably downward (left to right) on a true 1856-S

Christos · March 9, 2015 1:49PM

ebaybuyer I have always enjoyed your subtle snottiness, you would make a great politician.I posted the image of a higher grade coin for reference as none had been posted yet. That will or should help others compare the dates and mint marks.

ebaybuyer · March 9, 2015 2:00PM

id have to disagree with you christos, I don't possess the necessary tools to be a politician, i cannot waste other people's hard earned money and lie to them saying its for their own good

DIMEMAN · March 9, 2015 2:11PM

There are 2 obverses for the 56-S. One is level and one has a slight slope........just saying.

ebaybuyer · March 9, 2015 2:16PM

obverse 1.2 is a later die state of obverse 1 and thus will have the same date position. its not a different die. "just sayin" ..... dimeman perhaps you should get some sleep.

ebaybuyer · March 9, 2015 2:22PM

but before you do, go back to the fortin 1856-S webpage and scroll down to "comments" you will see something like:
Only one die pair is
known for this date .... and you've been collecting dimes for how long ? perhaps its time for some new glasses ... or larger coins

ebaybuyer · March 10, 2015 12:11AM

anyone up yet ?

DIMEMAN · March 10, 2015 12:44AM

I didn't say two dies. I said two obverses. There are two different looks as seen on Gerry's site. I don't know if it is due to wear or what. But one (date) looks higher in field and one looks to slope down a little. With the amount of wear on this (ebay) coin I don't know if it would even be conclusive in hand. No way of knowing. And I really don't care!

This is my last reply on this coin. I don't need anyone telling me that I don't know Seated Dimes.

Halfway · March 10, 2015 2:01AM

<< im not gonna argue with anyone, based on the shape of the mintmark, and the date position, its not an 1856-S >>

Why did you make this thread asking for opinions when you are deflecting many other's opinions who thinks it's an S mintmark.

Like many others, I am quite sure it is an S.

grip · March 10, 2015 2:33AM

Looks like an S to me..

ebaybuyer · March 10, 2015 3:47AM

im not deflecting anyone's opinions, although an opinion should have substance or its called a guess. im sorry if ive hurt your feelings dimeman, i read your response There are 2 obverses for the 56-S. One is level and one has a slight slope........just saying. to mean that there were TWO obverses, each one different, when in fact there is ONE obverse and ONE reverse die for this date, being ONE die pair perhaps ive misread your responses, or perhaps ive read them correctly and you have a sensitivity to being corrected. either way, the consensus is that it is an S so i thank all who enjoyed this exercise, and to those that didn't like it, exercise your right to not participate.

johnny9434 · March 10, 2015 4:56AM

<< 

<< PCGS would say "authenticity unverifiable" >>

>>

id find a better grade. jmo

roadrunner · March 10, 2015 6:38AM

<< My guess is O but it's open to interpretation.

PCGS would say "authenticity unverifiable" >>

If some of the reeds are visible, then authenticity would be quite verifiable. They must do this quite a bit on some of the more expensive better date CC, S, and O mints.

MonsterCoinz · March 10, 2015 6:47AM

Quite obviously an "O" to me. The bar of the "S" that you're seeing is actually an old hit that extends through the O and ends a couple of mm to the 4:00 of the O. I can adjust contrast, saturation etc later and upload an image if that would help.

mr1931S · March 10, 2015 7:53AM

I can adjust contrast, saturation etc later and upload an image if that would help.

Looking forward to it.The seller wants way to much for this piece even if an 'S.' One should be able to get a solid VG for $380.

rec78 · March 10, 2015 11:12AM

Too difficult to determine from the photos. Could be a discovery piece S/O or O/S.

It is a coin that needs to be examined under a microscope. Anyways, who but a low-ball collector would want it?

winky · March 10, 2015 11:57AM

It's S for sure. Just ask me if you don't believe me.

asheland · March 11, 2015 4:13AM

S

MonsterCoinz · March 11, 2015 4:49AM

Enhanced the images. It's an O with a mark running through 10:00 - 4:00. It would have to be a very short and squished S.

grip · March 11, 2015 4:58AM

Now I see an 0..Need another wine.Lol

fastfreddie · March 11, 2015 6:38AM

I say it's blue and gold just like the dress!

Let's all chip in $5 and buy it and settle it.

Besides, if someone wanted it and it wasn't an S then you can return.

asheland · March 11, 2015 6:41AM

I still see S.

WoodenJefferson · March 11, 2015 8:09AM

It's O/S

There.

S or O ?

Comments

Leave a Comment