New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
The "CC" mintmark slopes upward, not downward, on all 1871-74 CC dimes, and the second "C" is considerably higher than the first "C" in the mintmark. They were all struck with the same reverse die.
This mintmark doesn't display those characteristics.
In higher conditions, you could identify 1873 and 1874 CC coins by a die crack through the mintmark. As this occurred midway through the 1872 run, some come with and without, so you couldn't use that for a '72-CC where as you could with a '73-CC and '74-CC.
[Edited to add: Still, I'd pay $20 for it as a filler! ]
It won't be the current bidder. I watch a lot of Seated Dimes, and I know the current high bidder tries to pick a lot of low-hanging fruit. He's often the early high bidder on a lot of Seated dimes but the second bid usually takes him out at a low level. Occasionally he gets one, but I can guarantee that his max bid isn't very high.
The mint mark is one of the tip-offs. The other is this is a type II reverse, which was not produced until 1876. Look at the left end of the ribbon. The type I has a split end. The type II doesn't.
<< <i>The mint mark is one of the tip-offs. The other is this is a type II reverse, which was not produced until 1876. Look at the left end of the ribbon. The type I has a split end. The type II doesn't. >>
Yeah, I see that now.
I stopped at the first obvious sign to me, which was the mintmark. That screamed "fake" right away, so I stopped searching for other clues.
But yeah, I'm looking through my Greer and Fortin references, and I can clearly see this as well.
At first I assumed added mintmark...but now that you mention the Type II reverse, I'm betting it's an altered date.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
Just to give credit where it's due, this coin was pointed out to me by Bill (ebay - wsmmbe). He's a sometimes lurker on this forum, but I know some of you know him. I see him regularly at some of our local shows and he's one of the most knowledgeable coin guys I know.
Nice detective work Barry! I saw this dime and immediately knew we had a counterfeit. Of course the mintmark slope is a dead give away. But the size and form of the design elements on the obverse just do not appear to be correct. Looks like a typical cast counterfeit. I own several contemporary counterfeits, they are great to have around to remain me of what is bogus from that period.
Dismeguy
Gerry Fortin's Rare American Coins Online Storefront and Liberty Seated Dime Varieties Web- Book www.SeatedDimeVarieties.com Buying and Selling all Seated Denominations....
Comments
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
This mintmark doesn't display those characteristics.
In higher conditions, you could identify 1873 and 1874 CC coins by a die crack through the mintmark. As this occurred midway through the 1872 run, some come with and without, so you couldn't use that for a '72-CC where as you could with a '73-CC and '74-CC.
[Edited to add: Still, I'd pay $20 for it as a filler!
Ray
<< <i>Someone is going to get cheated. >>
It won't be the current bidder. I watch a lot of Seated Dimes, and I know the current high bidder tries to pick a lot of low-hanging fruit. He's often the early high bidder on a lot of Seated dimes but the second bid usually takes him out at a low level. Occasionally he gets one, but I can guarantee that his max bid isn't very high.
<< <i>The mint mark is one of the tip-offs. The other is this is a type II reverse, which was not produced until 1876. Look at the left end of the ribbon. The type I has a split end. The type II doesn't. >>
Yeah, I see that now.
I stopped at the first obvious sign to me, which was the mintmark. That screamed "fake" right away, so I stopped searching for other clues.
But yeah, I'm looking through my Greer and Fortin references, and I can clearly see this as well.
At first I assumed added mintmark...but now that you mention the Type II reverse, I'm betting it's an altered date.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
Dismeguy
The seller sent a terse reply: "Thanks for letting me know."
No response from Ebay - no surprise there.
(I was going to guess that it is too small
Joe.