1793 Chain Cent on eBay

Here's the link, It's not listed as such.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=150000742919

Sure it's a very low grade, but it's still a chain cent!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Yes it is and now everyone knows it. Haha it will go up in price Im sure

 

Could it be a reproduction that was intentionally damaged ? I saw one in CW awhile back.

 

I don't think so, it looks authentic to me, plus there is evidence of very old corrosion

 

I don't see any evidence of the word "copy" but I'm suspicious of the seller using the word rainbow when he doesn't know coins, and the private sale, and new seller.

 

It looks authentic to me. The pitting and encrustation is fairly consistent with being buried for an extended period of time. The seller's story corroborates with the condition.

His grandfather and father both here treasure hunters and travelled all around the country metal detecting and combing creekbeds and old homesteads looking for artifacts. They are auctioning off a large collection of arrowheads which probably took an entire lifetime to collect.

If it was a copy or a fake and the seller knew it was, then I don't see a reason why it wouldn't have an accurate description of what it was. If this is indeed a copy, it is a very old one and is therefore still highly collectible. However, I cannot see any evidence that it is.

 

The raised bubbles on the reverse are very troubling. Fire damage, possibly. Cast, possibly.

The coin has a very odd look to it. Sure has bold lettering and detail for a piece so worn.

 

Fake! (In regard to being an original 1793 chain cent)

The seller does not actually claim that this is an origianl chain cent and does not misrepresent it in any way. I find it hard to believe someone would be rude enough to actually post that comment about this being an original chain cent. And since this is probably a counterfeit [1793 chain cent] it is 'auction interference' on the part of the person who claimed this is an original chain cent. This coin will without a doubt go for a ridicoulous price because of that comment, and someone will be sorely disappointed. Too bad, but it's another typical auction on eBay.

 

here's one

http://coins.heritageauctions.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=408&Lot_No=118&src=pr#Photo

 

or just get a decent one

http://coins.heritageauctions.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=394&Lot_No=3013&src=pr

 

on a coin that rare no tpg no bid

 

Somebody that digs up arrowheads and bottles and such will find some coins. This piece has enough left that one cent is easy enough to see, as well as united and the date. It could have easily been declared a 1793 US cent but wasn't, then add new private seller= fake

Seller could easily take it to a local dealer for an opinion if he actually found it, or grandpa did.

 

some start with this and age it

http://cgi.ebay.com/RO-R-37-1793-Fl...ryZ11946QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

notice there is almost a hole on the ebay coin right where copy appears on the $20 copy

 

How could you possibly age a new coin to look like that?

 

I don't know the techniques used, but there was an article some months ago in Coin World where someone started with that exact replica item and produced something like this ebay "coin". It's very fishy that right where the incused word copy is suppossed to be, there is a "problem" on this coin.

I'll guess some acid, maybe a rock tumbler, burying the coin for awhile, and who knows what else are used.

I never understood how you can remove a mintmark from one coin and glue it onto another. Just because I can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done.

I'm pretty confident this started out as the replica I linked, a die struck copy of proper size and metal.

 

Off topic, but I have to comment due your user name PyrotekNX. If you are shooting this weekend/next week - be safe. From a fellow Green Man.

 

another fake

http://cgi.ebay.com/1793-Chain-Larg...categoryZ11946QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting

 

If this is a fake, AND the questioner sent this question in intentionally to "represent" a fake as the real thing on behalf of his friend the seller, wouldn't that be collusion?