1793 Large Cent Fake or Unique?

I would grade it 40 net 20 or 15, and either way it's scudzy with all the pitting. Honestly, I am leaning more towards 15 because not only is the coin pitted, but it's ugly. The coin in the following link had it's sharpness grade netted down by half for corrosion and it still has nice eye appeal, this coin does not.

http://images.goldbergauctions.com/php/lot_auc.php?site=1&sale=54&lot=11

I don't think the large number of high quality pieces effects how much you net from the sharpness, but it will dramatically lower the price for any scudzy piece such as this. I don't have my CQR on me now but I will check the price for an F15 and F20 scudzy coin.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm leaning toward a higher Detail or sharpness grade and more severe reduction in net grading. I really see no evidence of normal wear. Just weak strike (deduced from Bifurcation) , corrosion and damage. MS 60 Details net F12 for corrosion, damage and environmental issues (probably re-toned).

 

I'd say AU-55 detail, nice color, with moderate pitting over both front and back, light rim damage Net VF-25 maybe 30

 

so scudzy vg8 is 1250, no prices for higher scudzy. At 15 average, which I don't know if I could call this coin average but I agree it's higher then my original 40 grade, it books for 12.5K. Very interested to see what it sells for regardless.

 

didnt notice a reserve on it before. i wonder what they expect for it?

 

IMO: AU 50 details, scud, net 20

 

I suspect the third picture showing XF+ and $11,500 gives a ballpark.

 

It looks like this time it's over a lower reserve.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1793-XF-WRE...80?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item35b4b22f48

 

Still more than I would pay.

 

Marshall, do you have any nice pics of the C Reverse?

EDIT: Nevermind, I found some. If the Obverse isn't original...it's a pretty darn good fake. I wanted to take a closer look at the reverse first.

 

Very interesting thread....I am learning alot reading this....

 

This is what was throwing me off for a bit...I was comparing your coin's Reverse to the S-5 on the Stack's site...the Bergstrom & Hustkey collection. The top of the STAT[E]S on yours seems to bend away from the beads...as the S-5 in Breen's Encyclopedia. However, the Bergstrom & Huskey S-5 nearly touches the beads. On the same site, I found another S-5 from the Oliver Jung collection and it's reverse matches yours (see below...B&H left, OJ right). Now I'm interested to know the difference between the two coins on Stacks...but I digress.

Yours (the one you're tracking on eBay) looks genuine...as near as I can tell.

 

Hello I was told that my 1793 type 1 chain cent was a fake because if the tiny little bubbles on the reverse side. Is this common accurrance with fakes?

 

It's not common enough that I've heard of it. But the new copies of actual coins ("often repaired") are a class which I cannot distinguish from real.

Jack Young, who has frequented this board, has studied these and presented information that is beneficial to all concerned by high quality Chinese Fakes.

 

After looking at the above thread again, it would have been nice to have had Noyes at the time. The subject is Noyes Obverse Die State C and the State with crumbling over BER is Die State D which Breen called Variety State III. Noyes Obverse Die State C falls between Breen's Variety Die States II and III.

 

HA! The page is missing now (on supplied link).

Perhaps that's your answer???

 

Cast counterfeit coins often have surface bubbles from the casting process. Their presence on a coin would be a tell tale sign but I would need pictures or coin in hand to confirm. Cast coins have other tell tale signs, weakness of design elements, often but not always an edge seem, etc. So tiny bubbles alone are not 100% diagnostic of a fake, but they certainly elevate the probability of the coin being counterfeit.