1823 Large Cent- can you see what's wrong?

Initial listing:

Posted obverse:



And the reverse:



...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The "ES" in STATES is wonky. That's all I got.

 

The facial expression, liberty quite large, bottom of wreath not right. The date seems a bit odd. It also looks to new, in my opinion. You are the great one here, I'm learning! Thanks Jack.

 

It looks a little off. Just like some people out there. (Rolls eyes).

 

Date and the overall look. Add that 1823 is a REALLY tough date in decent condition.

 

I always start a review with attribution:

 

Don't know if it matters, but there's more space between the 3 and star compared to the other two.

 

Dentical lengths look erratic and more pointed rather than squared off compared to the other two.

 

So what are you showing us. Three coins. Can't read your mind.

 

Details mushy on your coin. Points of the headpiece and hair of the bust too close to stars 6 and 10. Date numbers wrong to thick and positioning off nose and mouth look off. She looks like a man. and that’s just the obverse

 

Middle coin a counterfeit. Deceptive at first. Not in comparison

 

Everything about the subject coin is wrong for either of the two 1823 varieties or the Restrike: Portrait's wrong, date's wrong, stars are wrong. On the reverse, leaves are wrong in relation to E of ERI, CENT is wrong. The subject coin has a really strong center dot: The 1823 over 1822 (1) has a weak or no center dot and the Normal 1823 (2) has no center dot.

I don't know what the obverse and reverse of the subject coin is based upon but it's not a 1823.

 

I'm totally confused, again. What's your assessment Jack? Thanks!

 

Those are my thoughts as well: everything is wrong. However, what really jumped at me was the style of the "2". It must be the oddest-looking digit "2" I have ever seen on a Matron Head cent.

The other this is the style of the bust. Even though Matron heads were struck from 1816-1839, I have always thought the earlier dates, 1823 included, have a slightly different, "more matronly" style.

This is my example of the 1823 N-2.

 

Agreed, the subject coin is a pretty bad counterfeit in comparison to either genuine examples. Continuing the attribution yields this image:


Subject coin has the "chip" of the other fakes in the "family"; this one based on a genuine 1833 N-5 obverse, 1833 N-3 reverse...

 

I can tell the coin is not N-1 or N-2 by looking @ leftside stars #2 and #3 (counting from the date upwards). They are not positioned or pointing correctly relative to Head.

 

seriously wonky date... here's mine for comparison

 

My previous Coin Week article on this "family" of counterfeits: https://coinweek.com/the-expanded-family-of-counterfeit-large-cents-based-on-the-1833-n-5-variety/

 

Different seller, 2nd example this week...

 

I agree. Looks like a dude