I bought this from a seller, http://www.ebay.com/itm/171906908680?_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT and some members on another coin forum are saying it's fake. I don't think it is, do you? This is the same Seated Liberty I posted in new acquisitions the other day. I know it's been cleaned, but I don't think it's fake.
At first I thought the date looked funky but apparently that's how they're supposed to look. This link has a picture of one you can compare yours with. http://www.usacoinbook.com/coins/1854/quarters/seated-liberty/1861-P/
Looks good to me. Why would anyone counterfeit a common date? There were almost 5 million minted and that was a lot in 1861.
They started using a tiny date punch about 1859. I'm not sure but it may have been the same punch as used on the dime.
Thanks, I didn't think it was fake. Some are citing the small date on the other forum as a red flag, but I see the date on the coin in the above link, and the date date on my coin match. Everything does, at least to me.
Seeing this reminds me of an observation that I made long ago, but had forgotten. IMO, the coin designs from before the requirement to include "E Pluribus Unum", "In God We Trust" were so much cleaner and nicer. What a design restriction it is to crowd a good device into that jumble of lettering. Instead of reeding, perhaps we could relegate the edges for those required phrases? Like free space...
These images look to me as if the coin was shot on an angle - therefore foreshortened - and then forced into a square format. I may be seeing things but the radius of the rims appears smaller at the cardinal points of the coin, and longer in the directions of the image corners. That's an artifact of a coin image being "squished" square when it wasn't to start. That means, to me, that all location relationships and the appearance of specific details like date spacing could be distorted, so any opinion has to be listed with a grain of salt. Keep that in mind when I say it looks OK to me.
I laid the coin on a flat surface and shot it straight on. I could post pics that I took that I didn't crop out the extra space around the coin.
Well, I did mention the possibility that I might currently be hallucinating. Still looks OK to me. Here is where you spend some time in the Heritage Archives, comparing this one to known-good examples to ensure date placement and general features are consistent. Seems to be recovering from a past cleaning; I don't expect to see areas of darkness limited to specific defined spots on the die - like the centers in the date and reverse letters - on an original-surface coin. Whether a TPG would adjudicate it "original" is above my pay grade.
I know it's been cleaned. I thought as I said, I've looked at enough SL's through the years to be confident it is real. I bought it knowing full well it was polished at some point in the past, possibly dipped, all the things that could have been done to that coin, despite it still being an au coin. Condition was the intent for me, as having at least one good exampled clean coin in my collection will help educate me on what to look for when looking at other raw examples. I'll have to post pics of my 1909 D Barber quarter that Treashunt said was au, but had AT. For me, condition was a factor. The toning looks quite different than what I had posted before, those were the seller pics.
Looks to me like it's got some lumps of metal to the left of Liberty's head. That's a sign of a counterfeit.
Which forum is saying fake and why? If based mostly upon the date size, it's unfortunate that these fellows found it more important to flap their lips about something they clearly knew little about, than to take a whole 15 seconds to educate themselves. A little paranoia can be a good thing, but not when it based upon ignorance and put forth as fact. Based solely upon the photos, I wouldn't lose sleep over authenticity, but I do hope, respectfully of course, that the price was well under what the seller was asking. With that said, posting other photos, with the light actually on the coin, would be helpful.
Looks authentic to me. Not sure whether it would grade problem free or not but it appears to be in the AU range.
I have no doubts about the authenticity of this piece (unless it is a high quality Chinese fake - which is absolutely possible). However, the coin has definitely been cleaned and has unappealing surfaces. You don't really need to ask any more questions after that, because that should be reason enough to not buy it.
