They have graded millions of them, so they have a great grasp on what authentic coins should look like. The counterfeits would stick out like a...
I like your 1801. In case you wanted to know, the variety is S-214
Some favorites: S-41 MDS [ATTACH] S-19b Head of 1793 [ATTACH] [ATTACH] Just turned 200 ;). N-13 [ATTACH] [ATTACH] I just sold this one,...
Nice S-28!
Looks like the bisected date to me as well.
Not worth the hassle for me
It really depends on which section of large cents you are wanting to learn about and how in-depth you want to go. I’d start with the Red Book of...
I would answer, but I would be simply repeating @scottishmoney ’s and @physics-fan3.14 ’s excellent replies: I got to handle about a dozen in...
Pics are too small and dark
Here’s another one [ATTACH] [ATTACH]
The leaf tip on the reverse is fully left of the F of OF
In ancient coins (from which the terms were derived), these two designations are one and the same.
I recently got a hella worn 1794 for $15 and sold it for $25. Had I known you were putting this set together, I would have held it for you....
Woah
The idea of something corrosive being applied to the coin certainly crossed my mind, but I could not think of how it would be applied in a...
One coin does not make a pattern
It kinds has a brushed appearance, but it also looks like a planchet flaw
This is what original never-been-dipped coins look like: [ATTACH] [ATTACH] [ATTACH] [ATTACH] [ATTACH] [ATTACH]
I disagree. There are degrees of dipping, from a 5-second immersion in a dilute solution to an hour-long soak in a concentrated solution. They...
Depends on the coin. If the “original” toning is ugly, I’d like it better lightly dipped. If the coin is below AU-55, I’d greatly prefer original...
Separate names with a comma.
