What do you guys think, 1856 or not?

rd5425 · October 6, 2003 6:37AM

Link

mgoodm3 · October 6, 2003 6:39AM

My first thought was an 8

jcping · October 6, 2003 6:40AM

No, I don't think so.

Shamika · October 6, 2003 6:48AM

Looks to me like the date is in relief. Therefore, NOT a real 1856.

lordmarcovan · October 6, 2003 6:48AM

Let us examine the evidence.

1) The seller is a liquidator of large estates, a Power Seller, and uses stupid animated gif images in the listing. This means nothing, but these are strikes against him in my book (probably not fair of me, but I will admit my bias against sellers like this). Oh, and "all sales are final". There's a real clue.

2) The last time I saw a Flying Eagle cent that was this corroded offered for sale, it was also purported to be an 1856, but was in fact an artificially corroded and worn Gallery Mint replica. The scammer did an incomplete job of camouflaging the "copy" stamp on the reverse, but his sleight of hand was clever enough to lure in several suckers before somebody blew the whistle on him.

3) The grade of the coin, and the images in the auction, while better than most images of questionable pieces, make it difficult for me to see the diagnostics on the "5" in the date, which is the first thing most folks look for in an altered "1856" coin made from an 1858.

I do not have enough evidence to convict, but the circumstantial evidence is strong, and my nose tells me somethin' don't smell right here.

tjkillian · October 6, 2003 6:49AM

No, why would someone sell a real one for such a low price? There must be a reason, perhaps it is a 1858?

Tom

millennium · October 6, 2003 6:59AM

It's fishy and smells.

ccrdragon · October 6, 2003 7:23AM

I wouldn't take the chance - as the others have said - way too many red lights on this one....

topstuf · October 6, 2003 8:19AM

What's the matter with you guys?

Can't you READ? The desc. sez it "SEEMS TO BE" an 1856 !!!!!

What MORE do you want?

sheeee

redcents · October 6, 2003 8:20AM

Tell him you'll gladly pay for him to send it in to ANACS (using the fastest service) to be net graded & IF it is a '56 he doesn't have to refund you the shipping & grading fees.

jdimmick · October 6, 2003 8:26AM

It does not have the diagnostics of a 56 FE.

goose3 · October 6, 2003 8:28AM

the downward portion of the 5 does not appear to bisect the "ball".

1858

abuell · October 6, 2003 8:29AM

The animation at the top left of the listing is exactly how the lucky winning bidder will look when he actually sees what he has paid for!

Newmismatist · October 6, 2003 8:42AM

Best Guess:
1. Altered 1858
2. Altered Copy
3. Altered coin
4. Counterfit coin
5. No matter which of the above Buyer is screwed! no returns / no refunds

nwcs · October 6, 2003 8:47AM

Here is the best part of the description:

"We have super magnified this coin to hopefully bring out and show you the detail and condition of what seems to be a very rare 1856 Flying Cent. We guarantee it to be an authentic Flying Eagle Cent but due to its condition the date has never been certified, graded or slabbed."

And we're not even sure if this is an "authentic Flying Eagle Cent!" But I can tell you that ain't no 1856!

goose3 · October 6, 2003 8:48AM

where's scamcrook when you need him!

nwcs · October 6, 2003 8:49AM

Scamcrook was NARU'd. We need a sonofscamcrook.

Blackhawk · October 6, 2003 8:52AM

To me it looks as if the 5 is correct for a 1856...the ball on the five sticks out past the upright portion of the five and the top flag looks like the correct shape. I still don't think that I'd take a chance on it though...Maybe for $50.00

Lakesammman · October 6, 2003 9:03AM

Neither the 5 or 6 are correct.

It's so badly corroded that he's hoping, I guess.

291fifth · October 6, 2003 9:06AM

Forget it. This coin could be authenticated by NCS, ANACS or SEGS. It wasn't. What does that tell you.

morganbarber · October 6, 2003 10:35AM

It is possible that it is a 1956, however, it is also possible that the next cent you get in change will be a 1956. Therefore, I wouldn't want to pay more than $.01 for it.

billiardmaster · October 6, 2003 11:44AM

If everybody would send this puke a message, he may get the message. I sent him one he will not like.
They are crooks who are doing harm to our hobby. Let them know we know.................
Rusty

jdimmick · October 6, 2003 11:49AM

Lakes,
I like that comment. When I was younger, I dug two Flying Eagles at an old tavern built in the late 1700's. They were about 14" in the ground and corroded as all hell. One looked like a 56, but I knew it wasnt, Just hoped it so much, I started making my self believe I had found one.

jim

Skipper53 · October 6, 2003 12:13PM

Most old corroded coins I've seen, the date is the first thing to disappear.
On this one, the date is the only thing that is recognizable.
I'd bet my 1913 V nickel that this was tampered with.

Conder101 · October 6, 2003 2:11PM

<< <i>) The last time I saw a Flying Eagle cent that was this corroded offered for sale, it was also purported to be an 1856, but was in fact an artificially corroded and worn Gallery Mint replica. >>

Not Gallery Mint. GMM has never made a flying eagle cent. They concentrate on screwpress coinages. The fake 56 was based on a Royal Oak Mint copy.

DMWJR · October 6, 2003 2:20PM

Uggg! That thing isn't worth a penny, but the winning bidder paid $305 . . . I think I'm going to be sick . . .

What do you guys think, 1856 or not?

Comments

Leave a Comment