I feel funny about doing this. These are images of two 1883 three cent nickels on Ebay. Coincidentally they are the only listings that are not entombed in TPG plastic. For those that don't know the series, the 1883 is a difficult date. However 1888 is a common date and easily doctored to appear to be 1883. I feel confident that the first coin is a doctored 1888 but cannot make up my mind on the second. And since I consider myself a rabid hobbyist rather than a numismatist, I thought I would put these out for everybody else's opine. So whatcha think? Doctored or not?... I plan to contact the sellers if my suspicions are confirmed. Edit..... I have no idea how to blow up the date area on coin #2. I need a teenager.
I blew that image up bigtime and it looks like the three might be overstriking something(top coin)........not sure if the 3 is funky or not......no experience here.
I don't know this series at all so take this for whatever you think it's worth. The first coin looks like a RPD. The second coin I can't see anything hinky about it but when I blow it up, but the photo is quite out of focus so I'm not at all certain you can tell anything at all from this photo. BTW, to blow up these photos, with your cursor hovering over the image, left click the photo, then right click your mouse and select "Save As". Up will pop your default directory and either hit save or select another directory to save it to. When you open that saved file, you can manipulate it. I do this with coins at auction or for sale when the host won't let me manipulate the photo in the ways I need to determine what I need to determine. Ditto for photos of coins CT members post where I need to see more deeply into the coin to address the question.
Yeah I know…… I can’t bust coins out of TPG plastic for my Dansco though. It would be easier asking me to scratch the paint on my new truck.
I compared the images to PCGS photos, the second one is more suspicious. The serifs on the end of the 3 are very wide, similar to the 8's serifs, while the serifs on the actual 3 are thin. The first one you posted has thin serifs, and the three looks like the right shape and right placement, but it is struck over something, maybe looks like a 1882. It can't be 1880 because the 0 is too big, 1881, the 8's are bigger and less spread out, 82, the 8's are good, but 2 is a bit big, and 84, the 4 is connected to the 8, less spread out. All the others in the 80's have bigger 8 and the number are less spread out. So what it is struck over, I have no clue.
https://archive.org/details/guideusthreecent2003gifford/page/n277/mode/2up Page 396 save the link Randy
