I understand that the 1877 Indian Head Cent often (always?) has a particularily weak strike on the southeast corner of the N in ONE. This does not seem to be a characteristic of dates prior or post 1877, or perhaps I just haven't looked at enough to see a pattern of occurrence. Is is possible to use the absence of a weak strike as evidence of counterfeiting? Or are there 'normal' 1877's that would invalidate such a red flag. Thanks in advance for any input.
Originally the Shallow N was used on copper-nickel cents, and was not needed after the switch to bronze. The 'Bold N' was created in 1870, and most 1870's have a bold N. In 1871 and 1872, most coins were 'Bold N's - in fact, coins with very shallow N's command large premiums. For circulation strikes: All 1877's were struck with the same reverse die, so they all have the 'Shallow N.' To answer your question, yes, it is absolutely possible to authenticate a coin based upon whether it has a Shallow N or a Bold N - all Bold N's are fake. For proofs: On the other hand, all proofs were struck with a Bold N, so any proof 1877 with a Shallow N is fake.
I should mention that people fake the shallow N on the 1877's. They recut the date, tool down the reverse to simulate a weak strike,then clean the coin to hide the evidence of tooling, and then retone the coin. It can be quite deceptive.
