Discussion in 'What's it Worth' started by Boot, Feb 24, 2015.
Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.
Quite a lot of people over-grade and over-value coins--go with your instinct on that. Even solid VF IHCs from 1900-9 (excluding the S-mint coins) are worth not much over $5 apiece, those from the 1890's slightly more. As Boot said, coins from this period in G4-6 are worth around a buck or so. Anyone who would accuse you of "ripping them off" when offered a fair price is probably not open to any negotiation--let them hold their coins; you will find better deals.
A little bit of info--here's a price list Rick Snow (an IHC expert) compile on circulated bronze IHC values--these are retail prices.
wow, that's awesome thanx so much, yeah i just decided that she can keep them, i just really wanted it to be a fair experience / deal for both of us... i'm really interested in learning more, there's so many different coins, it's a bit overwhelming and i'm not sure where to start!
Back to the original thread (before it got hijacked) - two comments:
First, is there doubling in front of the first feather? It appears to replicate the feather from the tip down through the headband but dropped down a bit,
Second, linking to ebay, or any other site like photo storage sites, is self defeating as the link is only temporary and will disappear after a few days, weeks or months or whenever the owner deletes the picture. It's better to just copy the picture, although that does raise copyright issues.
I can state pretty confidently from reading the variety sources that no DDO or DDR exists on this variety.
Buying that coin even at $250 would be a liability--if you ever wanted to upgrade, it would be a hard-sell except at a fire-sale price (ie a loss). The obverse looks scrubbed to me--it has that washed-out appearance I try to avoid. Since these are hard to cherrypick in higher grades, you might try buying from a variety dealer that has a good reputation and a review/return period on all they sell. I won't make this post an advertisement, but if you want more info just email me.
I am probably close to the bottom of totem pole as knowledge and completely knowing what I am talking about.... but it's hard to offer an opinion of value without seeing any of the coins. you said she thinks the IH are VF...what do you think they would grade? what are the grades of the other coins? but I honestly I think you should offer a $100.00. because your 1913 D Jefferson nickel would probably get you something close to the value of a 1943 copper penny. maybe more, maybe less.
Not arguing your statement, but how would you describe the ghost image in front of the headdress? No doubling exists is different from no KNOWN doubling exists. Die polishing could have erased any other traces of doubling and necessitated re-punching the date.
I'm neither a doubling expert nor an IHC expert.
Internet opinions--'expert' or otherwise--should be questioned. As for whether those lines in the field are doubling, pictured below is a well-known DDO in the headdress for comparison--check out the doubling in the feather shafts and LIBERTY--that's where die doubling shows up. Die doubling does not show as slight marks in the fields, because that's where the hub is lowest.
These marks in the fields near the profile of Liberty--which I assume is damage--does not show up on other examples of this 1894/1894. That's another reason it hasn't been documented as a doubled die or die variety--it hasn't been seen on other coins.
Dates are not repunched to fix an "erased" date due to polishing. At least there's no evidence seen, particularly on this 1894/1894--which has been studied in detail. The prevailing theory is that RPDs exist because the first date impression was placed improperly. In fact, on the 1894/1894, you can clearly see how tilted the original date was impressed. Yes, the original date impression was polished out (incompletely)--but that was to fix the date, not something else.
Since RPDs have been studied throughout the life of the die--from early die states to terminal die states--suggests that dating the dies was handled before the dies entered service.
See highlighted quote
The danger of making absolute statements like this is that a single example blows your argument out of the water. Reference the recently found 1919 DDO Dime - found only after 97 years of circulation and trade.
Well look...I commented only on this particular, very well-documented 1894/1894. The marks on this coin, which are alleged to be a DDO, are simply not seen on other examples of this variety. So, no this is not like the 1919 DDO dime--at all. 1. The 1894 Snow-1 is already very well-known and its markers studied carefully. 2. A true doubled die wouldn't appear on one example and not on another--that's just not how dies are made. 3. Whatever "argument" I brought to this discussion was to help the OP understand what he's seeing on that coin. You can compare this coin to others of this variety and see it's just damage in this area. I may be knowledgeable about IHCs, but I don't care about trolling on this topic.
Separate names with a comma.