First off, a metal detecting friend gave this to me and I'll tell why later after I see some input on this coin. I for one have no clue if it's real or fake and I'll explain that later also and maybe you'll understand why this coin has me confused and it might do the same with you. With all do respect, I'm open to hear your thoughts. It is or supposed to be a type 2
The date looks recessed like a type one, but the back looks type2. Just my input from googling Then the 8 over 7 thing..
I'll tell you what I think and how to confirm if it's real or fake after I hear your input. From your post. I'll tell why later after I see some input on this coin You and your friend certainly have interesting places to metal detect. Are they all surface finds or dug coins?
I thought the back changed in 1917, and the date recess was later. I didn't think the two were related. As for the coin, it would appear to be the overdate, but something I do not like about the surfaces. This is without digging into the details of the coin more.
You will never get an answer to that, at least the truth. Anti-pro men are loath to self incriminate. Z
You are going to need sharper image of the obverse. From what you posted, I'm 95% certain it is counterfeit. I reserve the right to change my mind.
Based on the OP's posting history alone, I'd say this coin is a fake. Not to mention, the surface wear and details seem off, which again leads me to it being a fake.
I consider myself somewhat of a noob but i'm glad "went" to Colorado a couple of weeks ago,and one of the online seminars I attended was "How to spot a fake" less than 5seconds I knew OP pic was a fake
It's just strange that your postings are about most likely faked coins.. Are you buying them for fun? A little more info would help..
Come on, guys! The date is clearly 191; & it's from the "s" mint. The San Francisco was not around back then. Perhaps someone in the ancients forum will know!?
It's supposed to be the type 2. I'll reply back to you. You're not being rude like these people that are on here from Facebook. The reason my friend gave it to me is because it's not silver and because of that, he thinks it's fake. But when you look them up, you get conflicting reports on them. There is no 2 articles the same on them. One states they made both, 100% silver and 100% copper with the same dimensions and they both weigh the same 6.25 grams which can't happen because silver is heavier than copper. Another one states 90% silver with 10% copper weighs 6.25 grams. Another states 90% silver and 10% copper and weighs 6.30 grams. Another states silver. Another states 88.5% silver and 11.5 % nickel and weighs less. This is what has me confused. And for the type 2 on reverse ,3 stars under the eagle and that's what this has. Type 1 no stars under eagle. And thank you for your input.
Genuine examples will display a die clash in the protected recesses near Liberty’s right knee, visible even in examples graded Good. The second diagnostic is a small pimple of extra metal above and the to the right of the final digit of the date. This diagnostic is less discernible on well circulated pieces.
That's all true, but this piece looks like a cartoon caricature of an SLQ. If I'm looking for a lost cat, and somebody shows me a stuffed sock-puppet toy, I don't need to check whether it's been microchipped.