1881 cc- To slab or not to slab!

I know I don't post on here very much, but know that I am always lurking and learning!! This is a great website!

Having said that I need an opinion on this coin- It is an unslabbed 1881 cc. I bought it from a reputable dealer so I don't question it's authenticity, but I was wondering on grade. I may want to sell it in the near future so I was wondering if it would be worth it to send it in. Thanks for any help!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I would DEFINITELY slab it. That date is one of the better CC dates, and in superior conditions can get rather pricey. You photos make it impossible for me to even suggest a grade--they are far too small, and have poor lighting (lots of shadows on the obverse and reverse). If you can get better photographs, then I could give you an opinion on grade. By the way, just buying from a reputable dealer doesn't guarantee authenticity of any coin--it improves the odds, but you would be surprised how many times they are fooled. Just off the top of my head, the coin looks worth slabbing, but do take better pictures please.

 

Thanks for post, will try to get better pics. These pics are a bit bigger so if that helps any.

 

My first thought was MS64, but better photos would definitely help.

Chris

 

Yeah, they are better. I would go with MS 63-64 because of the cheek in Liberty's face--a bit baggy. It is worth slabbing. Even better photos without shadows would help more. As a MS 63-64, you are talking about a $500+ coin.

 

I would agree on MS-63 and with the above posts to yes, send it!! :thumb:

 

I really hate to be the downer in this group, but I am fairly certain the coin is not legit, it could possibly be an added mintmark.
I took the OP pic and blew it up 4x. The pics are blurry so there is a chance I am wrong, but when I blew it up I noticed the second C in the MM was a bit higher than the first. In addition the first one looked a bit too narrow in the open space of the C

There are only a total of 6 VAM's for the 81 CC and out of the 6 there is only 3 reverses used. None of the MM's on the reverse's seemed to match

Here is the pic.

I drew two lines, one across the top of the CC and one across the bottom. Notice where they cross the two L's since one of the C's is noticeably higher




Now here is a picture of a known VAM 6 which has a Reverse 3Cb. They really aren't even close. This of course is just one of the 3 reverses, but I looked at the other two and they are equally not similar. As I said in the beginning, the blurry pic MAY be making the analysis less than accurate, but I don't think so, you can be the judge.

 

interesting catch...I'm not sure on this one but mammoth could we get a close up shot of the MM?

 

I love CoinTalk Morgan threads. More drama then Argo.

 

And more on the line than Argo......:burger:

 

I will attempt to get a close up of the MM later this evening. I do think the picture throws the CC out of alignment more than it really is, but we'll see!

Hey, maybe I have a previously unknown VAM and now I am rich! :yes:

 

No, I think it is the photo, or, if not-- it could be an 1881 Philadelphia genuine coin, with an added mint mark. We have dealt with this practice on other threads. The 1881 P mint is a common coin. The 81cc much less so.

 

I would like to see a clear, well-lit close-up of the mintmark.

Chris

 

The lines drawn on the authentic picture are not parallel i think...

 

Any CC should be slabed unless its not readable but love the coin

 

Ok all, this is the best I can do right now.

 

The mintmark looks okay to me, possibly the C3b reverse.

Chris

 

With the clear pictures, I now believe the MM is good.

 

Here is a recently de-slabbed 81 CC. It was in an old ANACS holder - MS63. Went very nicely in my book!

 

That's one nice looking 63!! Was Anacs conservative with the old holders?