http://cgi.ebay.com/1863-SEATED-LIB...dual?hash=item518cfcdb38&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14 A member of coin community asked about bidding on this coin, and I believe this coin is counterfeit, or AT at best. I think the coin was artificially toned in attempt to disguise the surfaces. The overall graininess on the devices, especially on the reverse eagle. But the "missing" dentical on the obverse 10 oclock is suspicious. I haven't seen that on a genuine coin before, but I'm not really experienced. Is that a counterfeit diagnostic? What really nails the coffin door shut for me though is the date. It is haphazard and looks "hand cut". I compared it to several genuine certified ones in the heritage archive, and it is not even close IMHO. Opinions?
Well, I certainly think it's artificially toned, and for that alone, I wouldn't buy it. The fields don't have the consistent, extra graininess I've seen on counterfeits, so that's inconclusive to me. I don't think the missing dentical is definitive. But there's enough here for me to avoid the coin.
I looked at the supersized pics, lots of little pimples on the reverse, which from what I have learned could be a rusty die, gravityy would tend to make one die more rusty than another, the denticle at ten could be a filled die, the toning, I am not even going to comment on it what do I know about toning? The seller looks like he has had good feedback, which at least means that he stands behind his sales. If I was in that market, wanted the coin I would email the seller and see what he answered. Of course after I consulted the collectors at cointalk
I guess what bothers me most is the date. The 4 pictures of "dates" on the left are taken from random certified seated dollars in varying grades from the Heritage archives. Compare those to the one on the right, which is from the OP's ebay link. Look at the holes in the "8" and "6" and the way the numbers are formed. The OP coin's date looks very different. The numbers on the OP coin are more evenly "thick" all the way through, where as the numbers on the genuine coins have much more transition from thin to thick. Also, the date on the OP's coin appears lumpy on the surface, while the authentic ones are smooth and sharp.
Wow. Great pics. To tell you the truth, the date stuck out at me first as being very soft. Your pics confirm it. Great comparison. Based on the date alone, I think there's no way it's real. One in that good of condition should have been in a slab long ago. Instead it's AT'd and no slab. Garbage.
It looks strange to me. The toning no doubt AT, but the surfaces are pimply, the eagle is grainy (on the head). On the obverse, a denticle between stars 3 and 4 looks hollow, which can be from a bubble in a cast copy. It looks too rounded to be a ding, in my opinion. It would be interesting to examine up close.
Beginning in the 1840 the Mint began using four digit logotype punches for he dates. Typically by the 1850's and later they would use the same style punch (although possibly in different sizes) for all the coins produced in a given year. The date style of the subject coin does not match that on known genuine coins. To the best of my knowledge this rather low mintage coin only comes from one die pair. So that coin is almost certainly fake.
#1: AT #2: Ugly. #3: Nice import. #4: Punt, those are 20 of the dumbest bids ever. #5: when did they move: 'Item location: hartford, United States' to China?
Nice catch , I haven't even looked at the coin yet and that three is definately a red flag , a great big one .:thumb: rzage
Listing removed, which I believe means eBay cancelled the sale after it ended. However,same seller also listed a fake 1848 SLD (with the same hollow-eyed eagle) which was getting bids when I checked it yesterday
