1865 IHC... real or fake?

It's not mine, and I'm not buying it, just want to hear your thoughts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

What does it weigh? It looks so clean as if it was minted Monday.
The fields are so flat. It seems unnatural. Where is the luster, considering the condition?
Never hurts to compare:

 

Unknown.

 

You know that I know nothing about this...but just comparing this to a known authentic example, it appears the features on the OP coin are too thick..or not as elegant as on the real coin. There is something about the top part of the ribbon that seems shaped wrong.

That's all i got!

It was fun to take a very close look at and compare two specimens.

Thanks @Seattlite86 !!


edited to add that after looking at another example, maybe the ribbon on 'OP coin' is okay.

 

Nothing says fake to me, but it's clearly not UNC. Most likely cleaned coin, plus bad photos. Hard to judge the actual grade. Nothing about it screams "fake" to me.

 

And by bad photos, I mean not representing it in true light.

 

I agree with Michael K. It looks too "fresh", too smooth.

However, I am NOT an expert on anything.

If it's real, it's probably very expensive.

 

The date in the OP coin is the giveaway for me. I'm going with fake.

Notice how far the top of the 6 is from being even with the outer curve.

The 5 is also a bit 'bulbous' on the outside rounded part.

Compare these attributes to the example @Michael K posted.

OP


Michael K

 

Authentic, but messed with. It’s a fancy 5 variety. Date is correct, so are some of the die cracks.

Top = known authentic coin
Bottom = OPs coin

 

I think it's fake and if it's real it sucks. The pics aren't bad, it just looks like a clear representation of a fake IHC to me.

 

Reverse die clash on a fake coin. They are covering all the bases now.

Both coins show signs of die clash.

 

Between the fields, the ribbon, the date and LIBERTY the coin looks really inconsistent. The photo looks wildly grainy and unclear so maybe I’m reading too much into it but based on those pics I wouldn’t pay $5 for it. Would probably pay $1-2 just for the education. That being said in hand the coin may look way different and be good, I don’t know.

 

I’m in the “real, but with a deceptive photo” camp. Surfaces look weird, but that’s explainable by some combination of a bad photo and the coin being messed with.

 

@Insider @desertgem @TypeCoin971793 @physics-fan3.14 @ldhair @Jack D. Young @Oldhoopster Gentlemen, what do you think about this coin?

 

Genuine but details: surfaces smoothed.

 

The date looked fine to me. The lack of luster is a concern for a coin that
is being represented as being in good condition. The flat chocolate candy
fields also seemed unnatural.
I have to agree with C-B-D his opinion makes sense to me.

 

Don’t forget that the date digits were literally hand-punched into the dies in this era. Variation is to be expected.

Maybe not smoothed, but definitely altered in some way. XF details, but genuine

 

It looks genuine to me, but harshly cleaned and polished - with intentionally deceptive photos. This is the sort of thing that might be sold on Ebay as a "proof."

 

Genuine, coin and photos severely boinked.

 

I believe it to be genuine and if you were to submit the photos to David Poliquin at indiancentvarieties.com it may be considered a new variety based on the rev die cracks. If David deems the rev. die cracking not to be to minor I believe he will assign it as a new variety in the webbook in which case he will attribute and grade the coin for you.