Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by Mcreagin, Feb 13, 2012.
Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.
Whereas you, of course, have handled thousands of 16D's and can tell at the merest glance that the coin in question doesn't look "right".
My impression of CT is that this is a place to learn from other's expertise not to shoot darts at each other. I believe it is O.K. to critique somebody's coin but to insult a person whom you don't know from Adam is uncalled for. There are people of all experience levels here and everyone is entitled to their own opinion and whether perceived as right or wrong is up to each of us. If this is an attempt at light sarcasam, you have failed. Perhaps you should pick up a book on human interaction perhaps titled BooksB4Insults.
there's almost no chance i would buy an unslabbed 1916-d (and this is coming from someone who basically only has unslabbed coins). my usual dealer has about 15 to 20 fake 16-ds that people have brought in thinking they were real. he has about 3 authentic ones. i've heard that counterfeit 1916-ds basically outnumber real ones by at least 10 or 15 to one. it is basically the most counterfeited coin ever.
no way would i buy it based on those photos alone, and probably not even if they had a 50 or 100x picture.
I say it is a fake. The front looks more worn than the reverse
Is it not safe to assume that if not in this case, most others the OPs are seeking proper information? PumpkinPie has shown his experience and even in the most basic sense should not state opinion as fact. Who of you do not believe he was giving an intelligent and experienced opinion? How many of you would place your money on a coins authenticity on the word of PumpkinPie? There is nothing wrong with the kid learning, its commendable. The difference between his post and mine is that I clearly stated that proper images are needed to give anymore than an off the cuff remark. I also would not have thrown my two cents in without knowing I could back up my comment.
I do not mean to bust on you either. I simply stated that if you are willing to make the call on an 1889-CC Morgans authenticity using only small blurry images, you are a "gambler to say the least". Is this not true? I was quite impressed that someone took the time to do as you did on this one and my comment was nothing personal. Hypothetically, would you have bought that coin as a 1889-CC using only the photos to authenticate? If so it would be a very risky move (AKA: gamble). Nothing more nothing less.
From a guy with this much experience with rare coins:
I can honestly say I have no clue. It does look almost authentic from the D shown, but my question is would it be worth it to you if you send it to a TPG for grading and authentication? I would say definitely yes.
May I ask how many you have? Real friends, ya know... warm people and not a computer screen? Is it really that terrible to call a kid out on his BS? You know as well as I he has never seen this coin in person and was only trying to sound as if he knew better. What if the OP was to take this kids advice? What if he said it was real and the guy his word and lost his butt on it? Obviously you are more interested in making snide little comments than trying to use any experience you may have to help another person. Did you get a good chuckle out of this one? Where is your thoughts on the authenticity of the OPs coin, sir? Maybe you should go out and get yourself a girlfriend. Then you would not have so much free time on your hands. Is that what is on your hands?
my sister is looking for a man???
I wish there were marks that went around the 2by2, because it depends on a rotated die. This is after reading the first page.
Looking at the obverse, it looks like the "I" in "liberty" is bent. I agree that the obverse looks more worn that the reverse, but who knows, it could(not very likely at all) be just uneven wear.
I am not going to argue that either person(s) is right, but is it not more important to look at the coin than insult each other?
The diagnostics for a genuine are the MM in one of the 4 known positions, all have a triangular center to the D and the serifs are parallel to the "E" in ONE. I don't think we can say either way without better pictures of the reverse.
I think this is the coin
He sold another '16-D on Feb. 11 and had positive feedback posted on Feb. 12. Something's "just not right" (to quote a few previous comments) and it's not only the coin... sellers like this scare me.
I wouldn't bid on this coin, primarily because the date is heavily counterfeited and this coin hasn't been certified by a major TPG.
Secondly, I'm bothered by the seeming difference in wear between the obverse and the reverse.
It doesn't seem natural to me.
Maybe it's real, maybe it ain't - but I wouldn't invest a nickel in it.
Somebody might wind up with a good deal or end up totally screwed.
Um, guys, let's talk about the coin here.... no need for immature comments.
And, everyone should remember this, a basic rule of thumb, when someone posts a coin and asks for opinions, what you get is opinions. Everyone is posting their opinion without having seen the coin in person. I can't stress enough that you remember that.
When people are posting their opinion to you, they (for the most part) are trying to be helpful. Their opinions might be rock solid advice, or they may be out there in left field. Just remember, they're posting their own opinion, and it's not gospel.
Separate names with a comma.