How to grade this Indian cent?

"Bob Hairgrove" wrote


Here's my 1863 Indian -- notice that the same "S" is almost entirely
missing:

http://tinyurl.com/5cqxa

Would this make it a die struck copy?
Thanks.

--

No. That was just an identifier (pickup point) for that specific counterfeit
only. Yours is probably genuine. The missing S
is PROBABLY from dirt or grease that clogged up the die. And PROBABLY no
one would counterfeit an 1863 when you could make a fake 1864L or 1877 and
make a lot more money for the same work. But then who though our Chinese
buddies would make fake EISENHOWER dollars??

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 11:54:13 GMT, "Frank Provasek"
wrote:

"Bob Hairgrove" wrote


Here's my 1863 Indian -- notice that the same "S" is almost entirely
missing:

http://tinyurl.com/5cqxa

Would this make it a die struck copy?
Thanks.

--

No. That was just an identifier (pickup point) for that specific counterfeit
only. Yours is probably genuine. The missing S
is PROBABLY from dirt or grease that clogged up the die. And PROBABLY no
one would counterfeit an 1863 when you could make a fake 1864L or 1877 and
make a lot more money for the same work. But then who though our Chinese
buddies would make fake EISENHOWER dollars??

Thanks, Frank.

I picked up this coin last year for $35 in an antique shop located
just outside of Branson, MO. They had someone's entire collection for
sale. At the time, I was only looking at "LIBERTY" and the diamonds
and didn't see the missing "S" until later. But the price seemed OK to
me at the time (maybe a little too much, but I was in a buying mood
g).

Hope you eventally get your money back!

--
Bob Hairgrove

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 09:29:35 +0100, Bob Hairgrove
is alleged to have written:
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 21:25:20 +0100, Bob Hairgrove
wrote:

This seems to be one of those "problem coins":

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=3955939927


Thanks to everyone who took the time to look at this coin.

Unfortunately, aside from the fact that the picture is subotimal, and
that the coin might have been cleaned, etc., it is easy enough to see
that the date is weakly struck. Don't have to get a better scan to see
that!

My question was: All else being equal, what influence does a weak
strike have on the net grade or price of ANY coin (not just the one in
this picture, although it is a good example of what I'm talking
about)?

Depends. If the coin normally comes weakly struck, it doesn't hurt the
price at all...but a well stuck specimen of that issue will command a
significant premium from a knowledgable collector. Example: 1825 Large
cent, any variety or 1912-S 5c. That could be worth as much as 50%
over bid.

OTOH, if well struck specimens are available, a weak strike can really
hurt the value. 1925 Peace dollar, for example. You'd be lucky to move
such a coin at 25% back of bid, most would be willing to pay few bucks
more for some more detail.

IMO.

Bruce
*************************************************
ANA R162074
EAC 3606

To email me, remember that RoadRunner
and Coyote do not mix.
*************************************************

From: Bob Hairgrove

, it is easy enough to see
that the date is weakly struck. Don't have to get a better scan to see
that!

Yes, you do. Look at the corresponding location on the reverse: the shield.
It looks to be well struck, but you cannot see the veritical lines at the top
because of the jpg compression. With that much visible compression in the
reverse side picture, you cannot assume that the date is not suffering from the
same effect in the obverse side picture.

It may be weakly struck because of an obstruction like grease in the die; it is
not very likely to be weakly struck due to die errosion given the appearance of
the rest of the obverse details. So in this case if the date is weakly struck,
it's probably due to a minor mint error and should only marginally deduct from
the value of the coin.

--
mark

On 05 Feb 2005 18:09:34 GMT, ustion (mark) wrote:

From: Bob Hairgrove

, it is easy enough to see
that the date is weakly struck. Don't have to get a better scan to see
that!

Yes, you do. Look at the corresponding location on the reverse: the shield.
It looks to be well struck, but you cannot see the veritical lines at the top
because of the jpg compression. With that much visible compression in the
reverse side picture, you cannot assume that the date is not suffering from the
same effect in the obverse side picture.

It may be weakly struck because of an obstruction like grease in the die; it is
not very likely to be weakly struck due to die errosion given the appearance of
the rest of the obverse details. So in this case if the date is weakly struck,
it's probably due to a minor mint error and should only marginally deduct from
the value of the coin.

Thanks to you, Mark, and everyone else as well -- this is such a great
newsgroup! I am learning so much.

--
Bob Hairgrove