Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;SuperDave, post: 2233101, member: 1892&quot;]If you ever shot a coin in bright sunlight or a medium-large spotlight, you&#039;d be changing your tune on the apparent depth of the devices.</p><p><br /></p><p>The 1846 is consistent with others on record, to include the irregularities on the lower left loop of the 8, the spindly 4 with the trumpet serif, and perhaps most importantly the die crack starting above the D and running through STA. Die cracks are not easy to counterfeit, or sandcast.</p><p><br /></p><p>The 1864-S is consistent with WB-101, the last use of the Large S and Type One reverse. To include the fact that the mint mark is at lesser relief than the surrounding devices. The noticeably thicker serifs on the 1 than the 4 are also typical. This, of course, does not prove originality.</p><p><br /></p><p>My most important point here is, if you&#039;re going to joust with the scammers on Ebay, load the gun before you pull the trigger. A strong circumstantial case can be made for the genuine status of both of these coins, by simply <i>knowing what they should look like</i>. Here with a little issue-specific knowledge you can instantly exclude any counterfeit which wasn&#039;t created from an original coin, at least. Took me about 10 minutes to learn all that stuff above - no, I didn&#039;t know it beforehand - by checking the Seated Half book at DLRC, and looking at a few coins on Heritage. And if you&#039;re going to judge based on features which can be directly attributed to the imaging process, you have to know the imaging process. Learning that took me a decade.</p><p><br /></p><p>If you&#039;re gonna do this, <b>be right</b>. I don&#039;t know if there&#039;s enough evidence here to go off and try to get auctions pulled. Frankly, I think they&#039;re real, and understand the seller&#039;s anger.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in