Coinbuf

So, you say that everything must be seen in hand, EXCEPT this one coin because, according to you, you know these two photos prove it all. You do know just how ridiculous you sound chasing your tail around this thread trying to save face, right (what little you have left). First you say internet photos cannot be trusted, then these are the best photos ever and there can be no mistake (on your part anyway ) and then you go back to your "mantra" that everything must be seen in hand. You don't even know what this particular ancient is actually supposed to look like do you? So far only one forum member (not you bty) actually knows just what this coin is supposed to look like in hand, so you have no idea which photo is accurate. For someone that has always proclaimed yourself an expert in photography you seem to have zero grasp of the concept of digital photographic artifacts or lighting and how those issues (and others) can affect what the eye sees. Well as I have always suspected, you have certainly proven to us just what a fraud you really are tonight throughout this thread.

Thank you for providing some actual knowledge of this coin to this thread.

Yes I think, not I know, that is a big difference, also you took that small section out of context. I go on to say that it needs to seen in hand and that I admittedly know zero about ancients. You are making all this up out of thin air to support your lie in a sad self validation effort. I know you are a jerk from your posts here, but now I'm beginning to think that you have some severe mental issues.

Are you really this much a fool or just stupid. Let me repeat I never said it was or was not a fake, only that I could not tell from the photos, the only thing that is blown is what little of a reputation that you had before you played the court jester in this thread.

In your pompous rush to pat yourself on the back you seem to have forgotten what you said earlier in this thread, yet now you claim victory biased only on those same photos. So as you don't trust photos just how is it that now you can state unequivocally that is a fake with only the same photos. Also, nobody in this thread has once said that it has to be good because it is in an NGC slab, you are just making things up as you go in an attempt to cover your BS. Just the other day you jumped on another member and posted: "That’s just meanness for its own sake. I’d say I expected more of you, but no, really I didn’t." I believe that there is an old saying about the pot calling the kettle black. You're post earlier was just childish, spiteful and hateful; the same exact behavior that you just displayed. I guess the rules are different for you. And just to set the record straight; I never said it could not be a fake, just that I could not condemn it from just these two sets of photos alone. At least I'm man enough to say that I don't know everything mr know it all, like I said good for you little man.

Children always have to thump their chest in an attempt to prove themself, a man has no need for such childish behavior.

Which kindergarten will that be taking place at? Sadly the adults in the room will have to be working.

Just the type of petty and childlike reply I have come to expect of you. So you finally got one right, good for you little man good for you.

What Greg said ^

To stay on topic, this coin has very different toning on the obv and rev.

Thank you sir, very kind words indeed. This was a coin I bought in an ACG slab back in the early 2000's. If you are not aware, ACG was run by a single person Alan Hagar, he was a very good grader and won the PCGS grading competition several times I have read. However, he had a propensity for grading his own coins and inventory on the rather liberal side and most people began to avoid his slabs as a result. I then sent it to NGC as a crossover, unlike today many years ago NGC did accept other slab brands for crossover besides just PCGS, and it crossed at the same grade. I honestly think its undegraded at MS64, but I also don't think it is worth the gamble to resubmit for a possible plus or one grade bump.

I agree that the coin looks different, but I do not see any signs in the first pic to show that the slab has been tampered with, so my reaction is that the differences are in the photo lighting and/or editing. I will say that I know zero about ancients so it would be very interesting to hear from a member that is well versed to know if there are two coins that look this alike yet apart and the value difference between them if so.

I think it is the same coin but the lighting/editing is vastly different and making some of the details disappear, along with making the label seem washed out. Would need an in hand look to really make the call.

You are correct, autocorrect is great, when it works.

Welcome to the forum, I'm sorry to say that those coins are all very common dates (or in the case of the Indian Head Cents damaged) in low circulated grades so there is not much value over the face value. 1912 I grade as Very Good10 - value of $1.50 1853 (w/arrows) I grade as Fine12 - value $8 1940 I grade as Very Good8 - Value $2 Both of the 1874 Indian Head Cents show signs of environmental damage/corrosion, I would grade both as Fine details - Value $2.50 for the pair The values I have given are the retail values that a collector might pay in a coin shop or at an on-line venue like ebay. I wish the news was better, many people think that just because a coin is old that it must be valuable. This can be true in a very small number of coins, the real truth is that most old coins value comes from how well preserved the coin is

That is a very fine example and a real nice upgrade to your set, congrats. It did indeed cost a hefty price, but quality always does, and upgrades at these levels does require some commitment and resolve. I have seen a few nice PCGS graded coins that would have been nice upgrades to my set, but most were pushed to the stratosphere in pricing, so I too continue to look and wait for the next upgrade piece to revile itself.

I do not have the title in front of me, however, I do not think that the book is available anywhere.

NGC gen 8 from the work provided by Conder101 in his book. Edited to add: you can also see a photo of this generation (as his example is a copper coin it does not have the W on the label) in the link provided above to a thread that Conder put together.

Great set!

Coin shows are way over rated, way way over rated.

Stollen how, where, under what circumstances? Too little information to be able to provide you any help.

Impossible to say for sure from your photos, however, from what little I can see your coin may have been reprocessed. If so the value would be just one cent. Info

Welcome to the forum. The 1855 gold dollar was the second highest mintage for the type two gold dollar, as your coin is badly damaged there is (imo) no collector value. As noted above the coin does retain its value in the form of the melt value of the gold which right now is around $89.50. I suspect that you could find a buyer that would pay more than the basic melt value but not very much more if the buyer is knowledgeable about coins. As the coin is damaged there would be no reason or benefit to pay and have NGC slab it. That is a very cool find for sure just not one that you will be able to retire on. P.S. for future reference when you post photos of coins it is much easier for us to give advice when we have a photo of the full obv and reverse, photos of sections of the coin make it much more difficult to answer questions unless you have a specific question about a small area of the coin.