• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Found at a flea market
0

34 posts in this topic

I'm no expert 1870 brown may be worth a few bucks. It looks a bit worn on one side hard to tell from the pictures I would hang on to it .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/12/2021 at 2:50 PM, Rick621 said:

Think I should have it graded?

Considering even if it came in at a G-4, which is way down the grading scale (which yours is somewhat better IMO) you have a roughly $65 dollar coin.  It would definitely offset the grading cost (even on the lower end of grade). If it was mine I would be fairly inclined to have it graded and I don't recommend that often nor do most people here on the site (I apologize if I'm way off base here on the grade).  More knowledgeable folks here can give you a better idea of grade on your Cent but a quick comparison looks like it would fall somewhere between a 10-20.  Hard to tell with a bit of blurry pics here.  Great find there nevertheless!

Edited by GBrad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More pictures please. Those prices might be good but let‚Äôs make sure it‚Äôs not cleaned which would lower value. Start with better pictures. Practice a little and pick the best ones. Here‚Äôs hoping it comes in at a good grade ūü§ď
i’m showing $40 AU thinking this is in the fine plus range 

Edited by James Zyskowski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope these pics are better. I have this sinking feeling that I.cutler may be on to something. I checked what a counterfeit would look like and it doesn't have the counterfeit trademarks, but still....it could be. The 7 looks correct.

1870 01.jpg

1870 r1.jpg

PICT0013.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot tell for certain if this a counterfeit or an environmentally damaged coin.  I am not an IHC specialist but some areas on the coin look off which trigger the fake response in my brain, one is the denticles between 11 and 12 o'clock on the obverse.   I also do not like the date numerals shape and look.  My guess is a fake that has been "weathered" to make it look more real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It weighs 3.11. Not sure about the denticles, could be PMD. Denticles weren't mentioned in the counterfeit detection process but they could be something no one has noticed. I'm just not sure. Do you think the Ask NGC section of the chat boards can put some resolution on this? I think I'll post it on there. Thanks for all the input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The counterfeit warning bell went of when I first saw the pics.  The date doesn't look quite right, especially the 1 and the top of the 7.  Also the N in ONE and CENT on the rev. looks wrong.  I'm not confident enough to say it's a Chinese fake, but I would pass on it, even at a cheap price.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to preface this by saying that I'm not an Indian Cent expert by any means but.........yeah, it's not looking right to me either.  That reverse just looks wrong to me with that nearly non-existent E in ONE.  I used to work at a brick and mortar shop, so I've seen my fair share of Indian Cents but I've never seen one with that kind of a weak E.  The N in ONE is concerning to me as well.  I'm thinking this one's a fake, sadly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also have my doubts as to the authenticity.  I don't like the rims, the date seems wrong but I haven't compared it to others, the extreme weakness on the rev around the E of ONE is also troubling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/12/2021 at 10:10 PM, Conder101 said:

I also have my doubts as to the authenticity.  I don't like the rims, the date seems wrong but I haven't compared it to others, the extreme weakness on the rev around the E of ONE is also troubling.

Good point on the rims, Conder......they do kind of look.....off.  That's definitely another area of concern with this coin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This coin has caused me to do some research.  At first sight, I assumed it was a legit and authentic IHC.  I then read the following posts concerning its authenticity, after I posted, which spurned me to spend the last hour+ looking into the validity of this coin. I am by no means an IHC expert but to me the OP's coin looks to be genuine.  I took several comparison pics with the OP's 1870 IHC coin directly next to a few PCGS Photograde 1870 IHC's.  Please excuse me if I am wrong but this is the kind of stuff that really interests me.  Here are my findings during comparison. (OP's coin is on the left in the first two pics and on the top in the third pic).

First pic: The denticles line up exactly with the letters on the obverse and in relation to every other device/letters adjacent to the rim of the coin even though the date is a bit off (the next pic will explain this).

Second pic: The date appears spot on with the OP's coin.  This PCGS photo comparison shown here was another photo of the same year IHC on Photograde and not the same coin in the first picture. Obviously it was a different Obverse die for this coin and photo but the date looks identical in structure and positioning.  The OP's 1 in the date of his coin does look a bit odd. In his pic it is hard to tell due to the dark lighting but could have suffered from a ding or contact mark or just simply PMD of some sort.

Third pic: I noticed numerous things on the reverse that were directly in line with the OP's coin but this is what stood out the most and I do not think a counterfeiter would be so scrupulous in duplicating such fine detail.  The bottom of the right leg of the N in CENT in the OP's coin looks to be a perfect match with the PCGS coin shown.  Please notice the slight 'upward' slant (lower left, higher right) on the 'flat' bottom of the leg of the N in CENT. I further noticed the positioning of the all design elements, in relation to other devices and design elements, and I could not see any noticeably differences, spacing, shape, size, etc..... in comparing both coins. Just an observation.

The details of the devices on the reverse appeared to be in correct order as well even though I did not post comparison pics.

As far as the weak looking E in ONE as mentioned, could this not be a result of circulation wear or possibly a partially grease filled die? And the 'wider letters' of ONE CENT could just simply be a result of circulation flattening possibly.  And the slightly thicker rim of the coin could be caused by a variety of different things. In addition, the OP's coin weight, 3.11 grams, is consistent with a copper IHC.

I saw numerous other similarities in the OP's coin versus PCGS photos of this same coin but thought I would stop here for you guy to critique and comment. If I am totally off base please excuse me and I would value any feedback on my research.  I'm still trying to learn here and this, to me, was a great opportunity in which to do so.  Thanks!

IMG_1627.jpg

IMG_1628.jpg

IMG_1629.JPG

Edited by GBrad
Meant to say CENT and not ONE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need some feedback from someone who knows more about the 1870 cents than I do.  Do all the 1870 cents use the same reverse hub?   Because the OP coin has the hub that was used on the later years, the "strong N" hub.  The Coinfacts picture posted has the Weak N hub.  I don't remember when the Strong N hub was introduced, 1870 or 1872.  If it was introduced in 1870 then they could have used both hubs that year, if it was introduced in 1872 then the OP coin has the wrong rev.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what Coin Week says about the strong "N" https://coinweek.com/us-coins/coinweek-iq-the-oddities-of-indian-head-cents/

I posted on Ask NGC/NCS, and here is what JWLange replied: "It is a modern fake that's been artificially "aged.".

I don't know.

I do like GBrad's analysis though.

Edited by Rick621
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/18/2021 at 12:46 PM, Rick621 said:

Here is what Coin Week says about the strong "N" https://coinweek.com/us-coins/coinweek-iq-the-oddities-of-indian-head-cents/

I posted on Ask NGC/NCS, and here is what JWLange replied: "It is a modern fake that's been artificially "aged.".

I don't know.

I do like GBrad's analysis though.

That settles it. Fake. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/18/2021 at 2:24 PM, Rick621 said:

This is a good modern fake. It even has a slightly beveled edge as pointed out in Coin Week which apparently is missing on most counterfeits.

I believe JWLange. But why did they do an 1870...practicing for the 1877 or 1909 S?

Fake 1870 close up edge (2).jpg

Semi-keys are targeted just as often as famous keys.  There's a bit of an advantage to the counterfeiter to target dates like an 1870 IHC because an 1870 is likely to be subjected to a lower degree of close scrutiny than an 1877 IHC or a 1909-S IHC.  Accordingly, a counterfeiter is more likely to be able to "pass" their 1870 than a more famous key date in the same series.  The counterfeiter is doing this to make money, and it's just as easy for them to crank out a few 1870's as it is a few 1877s.  If the 1870 is more likely to "pass" and result in a sale and a counterfeiter knew this, then that would be a good target for their efforts and likely an even better one than an 1877 or 1909-S.

Edited by Mohawk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/18/2021 at 1:46 PM, Rick621 said:

I do like GBrad's analysis though.

Thank you very much Rick621, I appreciate that.  I just wanted to do an in-depth comparison on the OP's coin vs. a graded and certified IHC in which to hopefully get some feedback about my research and observations.  I obviously don't have the tools or bank of knowledge as do many other members (and NGC Directors) have here but I tried to do the best I could with what I had.  I wasn't saying it was the real deal, just looked into it a bit deeper and I really enjoyed doing so. Thanks.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/18/2021 at 5:34 PM, James Zyskowski said:

Good job GBrad. There‚Äôs something about the eye in your pictures the socket the whole thing seems wonky. ūüĎÄ. The eyes the dang eyes ūü§ďūüôÄ

Your side by side top picture the ūüĎĀ is wrong ūüôÄ

Thanks but Ya know what?…. I wrote that eye discrepancy off to PMD and ED. HOWEVER….. you made me look at it more closely, something caught my eye (no pun intended) and now I see a major discrepancy. Look at LIBERTY on the headband. The spacing of the letters are completely off and something I did not realize or catch previously. The wide spacing of L I B and the close spacing of ERTY is no doubt way off. Thanks for the reply. You further educated me (in a roundabout manner) what to possibly look for on a fake. (thumbsu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/18/2021 at 4:42 AM, Conder101 said:

I need some feedback from someone who knows more about the 1870 cents than I do.  Do all the 1870 cents use the same reverse hub?   Because the OP coin has the hub that was used on the later years, the "strong N" hub.  The Coinfacts picture posted has the Weak N hub.  I don't remember when the Strong N hub was introduced, 1870 or 1872.  If it was introduced in 1870 then they could have used both hubs that year, if it was introduced in 1872 then the OP coin has the wrong rev.

Not only was the "Strong N" introduced in 1870, but there were also some "Weak N" dies that were re-hubbed with the "Strong N" hub. This created a doubled-die reverse that is called a "Type 2" by Snow.

The OP's coin is a fake, though, regardless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GBrad I‚Äôm kinda new but I am really just trying to practice what I‚Äôm learning from you and others. I am not very good at this but some one here or over at pcgs forum posted about looking at the whole coin then break it into sections. Then using sorta common sense to look for what‚Äôs out of place. The eyes were what I noticed. Now I see the date question and learning about beveled edge. I love this place ūü§ďūüôÄ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a few IHC coins and you got me thinking of checking them . Two examples, an 1864 and a 1903.

I noticed the OP picture of the odd denticle just above the first feather, as well as what everybody else pointed out. Thankfully I don’t see those on my examples.7A575392-683B-414E-A956-CB8BC5F46518.thumb.jpeg.5f1e12133fee30b28ed6d01ffc6703f1.jpeg

D47EDFC3-131A-49EC-886C-3327C0146123.jpeg

B8797B2B-7762-47C0-9B18-BFCC5B04EC64.jpeg

E1E758CE-1B2A-4448-B111-1EA2DE7FF295.jpeg

4309814F-2B10-4673-8487-36C13EE42F4E.jpeg

1212E757-1672-4B63-8D65-C000A4F2A5BC.jpeg

F29AF22C-C7D8-42E5-B7C7-51ABCE35402A.jpeg

A19BE67B-21EE-419D-B810-AE8B1DF276B4.jpeg

5873D0E2-3BF2-4A1C-97F2-DDE53714906C.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0