I looked at a whole bunch of examples over a long time before pulling the trigger on this Flying Eagle cent.
This is a bit of an enigma. The feather details are extremely sharp, but the legend may have been struck though grease causing weakness there. I see some clashing on the reverse and also some weakness at the wreath which may also be due to striking through grease. In any event, it is a lovely and interesting example.
I looked around for a article I have somewhere that addresses the weakness in many of the CuNi Cents but I couldn't find it. To my best recollection it seems that the hardness of the CuNi alloy was very hard on the dies and at some point the clearances were loosened to extend the die life. I believe it was stated that the weakness in many of the features of the coins struck after this change in the process is attributed to the increase of the space between the hammer and anvil die. All this being said does not negate the fact that the dies were also periodically greased causing the struck through errors. It would also explain the gorgeous fully struck examples in existence that would have been struck prior to the change in the process. I assume this applies to the later years (60 thru 64) or the whole life of the Copper Nickel Cents. I do know that it is difficult to find any of the IHC years that aren't mushy.
After arrival, I am now thinking this is likely S-161 with details causing my initial exclusion possibly being from corrosion and lighting in the photography. The obverse is very similar to 15 and the reverse is also close enough that corrosion may explain differences. It's just not a good enough example to claim a new variety.
@Hoky77 , I have concerns about your half cent. Here's a close up of the date of yours compared to another: @TypeCoin971793
Newest is a Probus Caesar {276-282} Facing left.This coin has great detail and that is the reason I bought it. I believe it is silver and do not know what the stains could be from. I will leave it as it is rather then tamper with it. Will not stick to a magnet so it is not cast. It is much different than any of the others I found like it.
Uh, not so good... Only 1 variety, C-1 and this one doesn't match; genuine image on the right courtesy PCGS: Has the look of the counterfeits from some of the Russian Bay sellers.
I was wondering if someone would ID this. I have had this coin for awhile now and thought I was in the follow the lead thread when I posted it. This was in a lot I bought from Europe and the pictures were blurry enough that the date on the half cent wasn't readable. There was a 1872 IHC that even with the blurry pics I could tell it had XF detail so I took a chance and made an offer of $200 based on the value of the 72. I was pretty excited when they arrived as the 72 was a Au and this half cent is as gorgeous as it is fake. It had me going for awhile. The obv. differences are visible with the naked eye and the berries on the rev. are huge compared to the real deal. This is the third time I have posted this coin over the last year and I am kind of surprised given the value that it wasn't caught before.
The top photo looks like 1857 N-1 Large Date Large Cent Obverse. Could the photos be mixed up? I backed up and see the whole coin doesn't have the right portrait head. If it's counterfeit, I think they used a Large Cent N-1 as a guide for the date.