Asking for some input on these pics if it's an obvious fake, and if not then potential value. Looking at buying it. Thanks I'm a bit leery that the date seems clean but the rest if suffering from environmental damage.
What could be a $500-$1000 coin should be authenticated by a major grading service and not sold raw. I don't know enough about early large cents, but these are often faked.
That's what I was thinking of the obverse being in much better shape than the reverse. And also the denticles being uneven in width at various parts around the rim looks odd too though I see those inconsistencies in pictures I've reviewed from PCGS. Thanks, I think I'll pass.
Here is one that has been verified. Compare to your photos to look for similarities/ differences. Even if you are not interested in the auction coin, it doesn't hurt to study up. The variety could be different.
It appears to me to be S-81. As for the corrosion, I've seen much worse on coins found under houses that the only part on the coin legible was the date. That said, I would not purchase this coin at that price. Fairly common variety with too much damage.
The pitting gives it away. Fake. Also I think the head is to big for the coin. It almost looks like it should be a half cent. Of the pics I have seen of this year, the L in Liberty is not that close to the cap.
On early copper? Just out of curiosity, exactly what about this pitting do you believe is such a dead giveaway? There are a few gentlemen here who've shown themselves to be very knowledgeable in this area, so perhaps one will stop in to confirm moekeever's attribution. @Marshall
I have been in a few authentication seminars over the years and saw this coin as soon as it was posted. My first reaction was to post that I needed a more magnified image. Then, I thought better of it as IMO, 98% of both the professional TPGS authenticators and many EAC members (who know more about these coins than I ever will) viewing this image would possibly pass on an opinion. This is either genuine or one of the "state-of-the-art fakes. I just added nothing. Michael K, posted: "I would be suspicious of authenticity." Care to step up to the plate and tell us why? CoinBreaux, posted: "I find it odd that the reverse has so much damage, yet the obverse is almost untouched." Damage happens, one side can be perfect while the other has damage. What is more common on these coins is one side G to VG and the other side (usually the reverse) almost smooth. Michael K, posted: "Here is one that has been verified. Compare to your photos to look for similarities/ differences. Even if you are not interested in the auction coin, it doesn't hurt to study up. The variety could be different." Since dies for these coins are different, as you pointed out, unless you find the exact variety to image, a different variety is not helpful. jessash1976, posted: "The pitting gives it away. Fake." The pitting is corrosion. Calling the coin based on that is, well...er, not a good reason. "Also I think the head is to big for the coin. It almost looks like it should be a half cent. Of the pics I have seen of this year, the L in Liberty is not that close to the cap." Good eye! The things you point out are due to the variety.
Variety is only a slight difference. Why do you always have to be a complete edited Is that stepping up enough for you?
I have learned not to let personal attacks bother me so I'll just reply: Michael K, posted: "I would be suspicious of authenticity." I asked why you think so? Guess that makes me a ... Michael K, posted: "Variety is only a slight difference." IMO, not so. There are eleven varieties of this date. They look different. Guess posting that also makes me a ... Michel K, posted: "Why do you always have to be a complete edited Is that stepping up enough for you?" NO! I asked you a specific question about your suspicions. While All of us posting are trying to be helpful, I'm sorry you feel that way about someone who disagreed with your posts and hoped for more. PS I've copied the bag for my personal use as that (IMO) was worthwhile.
Sorry if I created this conflict. I was trying to be helpful and learn at the same time. I'm not an expert and I use various reference books to try and determine variety. I said S-81 as the obverse is #1 and the reverse I think A. What I can see of the fraction bar is curved up a little and the "T" in United is slightly lower than I and E.
Hey sorry to get off topic but I want to begin collecting early coppers, is there a place where Sheldon varieties are listed? Also what about the Noyes die state varites? Where are those listed. Oh and also the Rick Snow varieties. Alright, sorry to get off topic my bad.
This looks like the S-87 to me and if it is a fake, it is the best one I've ever seen. The 6 is far too low for the S-81 and while similar, the S-87 Reverse is also a better match with the triplet under the right upright of U being most diagnostic.