Question on authenticity of $2 1/2 Liberty

I mainly collect Indians, but have a few Liberty coins as well. What is everyone's thoughts on this coin? It is a rarer date, do I have hesitations about a raw coin. Blurred to try to remain anonymous.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Sharp as an AU58 but no luster? Looks real enough to me, but maybe tooled or surfaces altered somehow...

 

I understand what you are trying to do, but in blocking out the date and mintmark you are obscuring potential diagnostics. I don't see anything that jumps out to me and screams counterfeit (or fantasy coin ), but the other poster brings up an excellent point about luster. Where is it?

 

AU details cleaned maybe?

 

Sometimes luster does not show well in certain pictures. @Insider , any thoughts? Also, is this a new reverse or an old reverse? The Oval O in Of makes it seem to be an old reverse, but the thinness of the arrows and shield lines look more like new reverse.

 

Looks like an old reverse to me.

 

Covering the date and mintmark removes a valuable diagnostic tool. Post un-censored pics, so we can give you the best information possible.

Especially if it is a rarer date, the date becomes important!

 

Not my real area but I'd pass due to the scratches on the obverse and it appears that reverse may have been cleaned. Lots of lights scratches in the field.

 

How can showing the date and mint provide any additional information to show this coin is or isn't genuine. We should assume the poster knows it's a coin with a valid date and mint combination; he just wants an opinion on whether it's genuine or not based on its appearance.

 

Date placement and MM style, are necessary when dealing with a forgery or counterfeit.

 

To put it another way the date could narrow down reasons it may or may not be questioned.
I don't see any real red flags with what I can see so far AND for spot gold price whats not to like....kidding aside IF the price is too high just pass.
Does it come with a couple day check out period?

 

I think it might be cleaned, and I'm wondering if that's a tool mark going from the 2 to the eagle's talon.

 

It looks suspicious to me.
Several areas are off, such as the faded and merged vertical shield lines.
But especially the texture on the high points.

1868-S ?

 

In addition, the gaps in the eagle's right, viewer's left wing where major feathers meet seem wrong. I mean the spots inward of the D, and on a line from the T thru the tops of the leaves - there shouldn't be what looks like field-level space there. The hair curls on the neck and above & behind the eye seem too weak, as well.

Agreed on the shield, too. If this is a fake - and I think it is - it's a really, really good one.

Later, I'd like to be able to look at others of the exact same date/MM.

 

I agree that if it is a fake, it is a good one. The ONLY thing that caught my eye was that part of it looks like old reverse, part of it looks like new reverse. I have never seen an old reverse with the shield so detailed on the left side. I will post unedited pictures before long, and you can compare to others of the same date.

 

The position of the 1 and parts of the 8 relative to the denticles, as well as the bust, tell me that this is an 1868-S quarter eagle.

This date is scarce, especially in this grade, but not widely counterfeited, as far as I know.

 

tooling marks, added Mint Mark, wrong date placement etc...

 

It's going for HUGE money

 

Am I seeing things or is there a clash (to striaght)or imprint from the top of the Eagles beak to F of OF?

 

According to Breen, several post-1859 San Francisco quarter eagles still used the "old" reverse. Compare to this one: http://www.ebay.com/itm/172138429742

After researching it some more, I believe that it is genuine.