I don't care that it is slabbed, it's a fake 42/1... I used to find 42/1's in the 50's and early 60's when I lived in Poughkeepsie, N.Y. ebay 220080930813
Looks genuine to me. A small minority of them have very thick digits for some reason, and this is one of them IMO. To be sure I am going to do a little research on this later today. I'll let you all know what I find, if anything.
"This particular coin is the so-call "Fat 2" variety -- one of the first such coins struck with a trace of extra filling in numeral "2," according to a Breen article printed in the early 1970s. (The variety has ZERO extra impact on the coin's value, but merely makes it a little more interesting.)" If this is true, then why does Breen's encyclopedia say: "Only one var." It is my understanding that there was only one die that had an overdate. Also, David Lange's 'Complete Guide to Mercury Dimes" does not mention a 'Fat' version of the overdate. Sorry, but I think that this is bogus.
Looks nothing like the one that I have I can tell you that. ( AU58 and pulled from a cookie jar stash )
Ebay Link Even if there was only one die that struck the overdate, something might have happened to the die near the end of its use that caused the thick digit.
True, but, then why has no one mentioned it in any of the common references: Breen, Lange, the Guide Book, etc. Plus why would the 1 in the underdate look thinner?
I believe it is real. Some of these have thicker digits, but the difference is not even close to dramatic as this one, after looking over some literature. However, based on the fact that the fasces are connected to the branch, and the one in the overse is in the right position, I feel it is real. I also would find it hard to believe that with such a funny looking 42/1, that NGC would authenticate unless they were certain it is real.
