1799 Warning

Hmmm, pretty tricky of whoever did this to manipulate one of the most common 1798 LC's into a 1799...

A Knowledgeable copper collector would never fall for this. But, for someone who has limited/no knowledge of Sheldon die varieties this actually looks pretty convincing at first sight.

I wonder how it was done.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Funny how the worst wear on the reverse is directly opposite the date (factor the rotation and the obverse not being presented "vertically"), and the most porosity on the obverse (which is otherwise not porous) is at the date.

 

This listing might get zapped soon so here are the LFCP's for posterity...

 

I would suggest messaging the mods and asking them to move your post over to its own thread. Possibly in the What's it worth forum.

 

I dunno, for most people a thousand dollars is a lot of money; for a few, it's chump change.

Also, I'm pretty sure this ebay account is ringing a memory bell. Something about piecing out an inheritance one coin at a time is reminding me of an article or something I've come across.... maybe an old forum post somewhere.

 

First you need someone who knows the difference between a doubled die and strike doubling which are easily confused. I'm sure someone on here can help. I can't see any doubling so I'm certainly not helpful.

Once you are certain of what it is, there are several sources of market information including guide books and auction records.

 

It was done well and the retoning is something to behold. But there is a complete ignorance of variety markers.

 

"A fool and his money are soon parted." That's pretty old advice and still true. I had hits and misses and I consider myself quite knowledgeable. But some are simply dishonest rather than ignorant.

The evidence is certainly leaning toward the former.

 

Actually, there are three. S-188, 1799 NC-1 and S-189.

 

It appears the seller or eBay have removed the offending listings.

 

That's the message you get when Ebay did it for him. When the seller removes it voluntarily, the message reflects that it was a seller action.

 

Surprisingly I have seen that variety altered to a 99 on several occasions.

On my other laptop I have images of a genuine PCGS slab with a graded 1804 large cent with a date altered from an 1803.

There are hundreds of 1794 head of 93 PCGS and NGC slabs out there with heads of 94 in them (That's a $2,000 error if you trust the slab.)

 

It would make sense to use a fairly common "donor" coin from a cost standpoint.