I don't know about the 1877 IHC, but the mint mark on the '16-D looks like it's in the wrong place to me. And, what's up with the dime images being in the same auction?
On a business strike 1877 indian cent, the "N" in "ONE" should be weak on the lower part. If it is strong, it is a counterfeit. This coin has a very strong "N".
Those are horrible FAKES. The "d" on the genuine is kind of facing more of a SSE slant compared to the rest of the design, but this one's D is too fat, and not near the proper area. And I agree, the 7's are ridiculous.
<< <i>Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 19:56:34 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) X-Mailer: IncrediMail (3001524) From: "Sandor Ruzsa" <sanscuba@sbcglobal.net> To: <sales@compucheap.com> Subject: Re: Question for item #3919190965 - 1877 Indian Penny Very Rare Key Date X-FID: BA285063-5BCE-11D4-AF8D-0050DAC67E11
That is funny because I took them out of PCGS Holders graded Shows what you know
-------Original Message-------
From: sales@compucheap.com Date: 07/01/04 18:18:06 To: sanscuba@sbcglobal.net Subject: Question for item #3919190965 - 1877 Indian Penny Very Rare Key Date
Question about your item
Dear sanscuba,
I hate to break the news to you, but both the 1877 IHC and the 1916-D Mercury dime are altered coins, IE; fakes. >>
You know it looks real shiny and awfully porous in the photos. Did they wax it or something? I have a very fine to extra fine large cent, that someone has apparently waxed. I am not sure if I want to do anything with it, as I think they used to wax coins back before the 1900's.
<< <i>read his feedback, looks like there's been some question of authenticity and descriptions of his coins. >>
Really? This guy sells many things and the only feedback I can find that is definitely linked to coins is: "received coins thanks ", and he only has one actual negative. (Feedback listing shows two but one his first one the guy who left it did a followup stating the the mix-up was his fault.)
I agree though, both of these coins he is selling are fake. And he might have taken them out of PCGS bodybags, but not slabs.
Something's up with the 7's, and I'm not talking 7UP! Also, he doesn't know the series: << IT IS BY FAR THE LOWEST MINTED COIN. >> Actually, it's not. the 1909-S had serveral hundred thousand fewer minted. 852,500 vs. 309,000. You do the math.
Q: Is it illegal to impersonate a federal agency? I was thinking of e-mailing the seller with Secret Serviced letterhead informing them the coins are fakes and that selling counterfeits is a felony, along with an order to end the auction or face criminal penalties. Make 'em sweat, you know?
I don't know about impersonating a federal agency, but impersonating a law enforcement officer is. A Secret Service agent would be a law enforcement officer but you wouldn't really be impersonating an actual agent would you? Of curse if you signed the letter then maybe you are.
I haven't sent such a letter and probably won't but it would be fun to make these scammers think twice! I hate seeing these sort of auctions when the "coins" are so obviously bogus. BTW, sorry for hijacking your thread, au58.
Just some quick observations: 1. Definitely fails the weak 'N' on the reverse 2. If you look at the second obverse picture, the circles on the '8' in the date are too thin on the right and look to be below the level of the circles on the left (may be a trick of the lighting, but I don't they are) 3. The leg on the second '7' is too large. On the real 1877, the legs on the 7's are almost identical 4. The portion of the bust that extends past the beads is too pointy. The real 1877 is blunt in comparison to the ebay picture 5. For a coin that shows as little wear on the devices as the ebay picture shows, you should be able to see at least the last diamond in the ribbon - I can see no evidence of diamonds any where on the band in the ebay picture 6. There is something funky about the color of the area that contains the date
(attributed to the correct site author - thanks Russ)
Cecil Total Copper Nutcase - African, British Ships, Channel Islands!!! 'Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup'
Comments
...what here would lead anyone to want to buy this?
Russ, NCNE
the IHC sevens look weird
the d on the 1916 is quite obviously added
Doctor Doctor gimmy the news!
Toned Coins for sale @ tonedcointrader.com
those are the large coaster ones they sell at gift shops...not to mention in some pics the date on the indian looks ddo
Go BIG or GO HOME. ©Bill
Tom
<< <i>Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 19:56:34 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
X-Mailer: IncrediMail (3001524)
From: "Sandor Ruzsa" <sanscuba@sbcglobal.net>
To: <sales@compucheap.com>
Subject: Re: Question for item #3919190965 - 1877 Indian Penny Very Rare Key Date
X-FID: BA285063-5BCE-11D4-AF8D-0050DAC67E11
That is funny because I took them out of PCGS Holders graded
Shows what you know
-------Original Message-------
From: sales@compucheap.com
Date: 07/01/04 18:18:06
To: sanscuba@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Question for item #3919190965 - 1877 Indian Penny Very Rare Key Date
Question about your item
Dear sanscuba,
I hate to break the news to you, but both the 1877 IHC and the 1916-D Mercury dime are altered coins, IE; fakes. >>
Russ, NCNE
Did they wax it or something?
I have a very fine to extra fine large cent, that someone has apparently waxed.
I am not sure if I want to do anything with it, as I think they used to wax coins back before the 1900's.
Shows what you know
Yeah Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight why the He** would ANYBODY do that?????????????
Toned Coins for sale @ tonedcointrader.com
That is funny!
<< <i>read his feedback, looks like there's been some question of authenticity and descriptions of his coins. >>
Really? This guy sells many things and the only feedback I can find that is definitely linked to coins is:
"received coins thanks ", and he only has one actual negative. (Feedback listing shows two but one his first one the guy who left it did a followup stating the the mix-up was his fault.)
I agree though, both of these coins he is selling are fake. And he might have taken them out of PCGS bodybags, but not slabs.
Q: Is it illegal to impersonate a federal agency? I was thinking of e-mailing the seller with Secret Serviced letterhead informing them the coins are fakes and that selling counterfeits is a felony, along with an order to end the auction or face criminal penalties. Make 'em sweat, you know?
<< <i>
That is funny because I took them out of PCGS Holders graded
Shows what you know
>>
Holy crap Russ...that is funny!
Real '77
Just some quick observations:
1. Definitely fails the weak 'N' on the reverse
2. If you look at the second obverse picture, the circles on the '8' in the date are too thin on the right and look to be below the level of the circles on the left (may be a trick of the lighting, but I don't they are)
3. The leg on the second '7' is too large. On the real 1877, the legs on the 7's are almost identical
4. The portion of the bust that extends past the beads is too pointy. The real 1877 is blunt in comparison to the ebay picture
5. For a coin that shows as little wear on the devices as the ebay picture shows, you should be able to see at least the last diamond in the ribbon - I can see no evidence of diamonds any where on the band in the ebay picture
6. There is something funky about the color of the area that contains the date
(attributed to the correct site author - thanks Russ)
Total Copper Nutcase - African, British Ships, Channel Islands!!!
'Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup'
<< <i>Compare the pictures that the ebay seller presents to this one taken from Rick Snow's IHC site. >>
I'm pretty sure that's actually Shylock's site.
Russ, NCNE