Follow the lead picture post. 8 8

[Mr_Spud]

[ldhair]

Back on track.

 

[Mr_Spud]

[MorganMan]

Lets make three cents a nickel !

 

[Mr_Spud]

[ldhair]

Back on track.

 

[Mr_Spud]

[ldhair]

[Mr_Spud]

[Hoghead515]

Those are some sweet 3 cent silvers. One of my favorite coins. Hopefully I will be able to afford a nice one like those above one of these days. This one is the only one i own for now. Not very nice but i still enjoy it. 

[Mr_Spud]

[ldhair]

Counterfeit

 

[Henri Charriere]

On 9/19/2021 at 2:33 AM, ldhair said:

Counterfeit

 

A one word response doesn't cut it.  I, or anyone else for that matter, could state otherwise.

Put yourself in the contributo'rs shoes, wouldn't you want a single observable indication in support of your conclusion?  Of course you would! Whatever the condition -- and expense, I believe the contributor is entitled to a reasonable, courteous explanation as to why his coin does not appear to radiate genuineness.  🐓 

 

 

 

[Mohawk]

On 9/19/2021 at 10:25 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

A one word response doesn't cut it.  I, or anyone else for that matter, could state otherwise.

Put yourself in the contributo'rs shoes, wouldn't you want a single observable indication in support of your conclusion?  Of course you would! Whatever the condition -- and expense, I believe the contributor is entitled to a reasonable, courteous explanation as to why his coin does not appear to radiate genuineness.  🐓 

 

 

 

Well.....allow me to chime in here Quintus.  In looking at the coin, it's very crudely made.  The lettering and the numerals in the date are very crude and entirely incorrect for a genuine 1861 3 Cent.  On the reverse, the Roman numeral Is that make up the III are incorrect and are not aligned with one another, as they would be on a genuine coin.  And the look of this piece is entirely wrong.  For the contributor's and others' review, I have posted photos of a genuine 1861 3 Cent, courtesy of our host's Coin Explorer page.  Once you see the real thing, the problems with the other 1861 3 Cent are readily apparent:

 

Edited September 20, 2021 by Mohawk

[Coinbuf]

On 9/19/2021 at 7:25 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

A one word response doesn't cut it.  I, or anyone else for that matter, could state otherwise.

Put yourself in the contributo'rs shoes, wouldn't you want a single observable indication in support of your conclusion?  Of course you would! Whatever the condition -- and expense, I believe the contributor is entitled to a reasonable, courteous explanation as to why his coin does not appear to radiate genuineness.  🐓 

 

 

 

Well since the guy that posted the coin is the one that owns the coin and the same guy that wrote "counterfeit" why is it that you feel that Idhair owes himself an explanation?

[Mohawk]

On 9/20/2021 at 12:10 AM, Coinbuf said:

Well since the guy that posted the coin is the one that owns the coin and the same guy that wrote "counterfeit" why is it that you feel that Idhair owes himself an explanation?

Oh boy....I didn't catch that part of it, that it was the same guy.  I guess I should look better before getting into an explanation in the future.

[Henri Charriere]

As the the judge says in court:  "You opened the door, counselor."  By exhibiting the coin before a membership of thousands and a world of millions, Idhair unwittingly, or perhaps quite intentionally, invited speculation...

1.  If it is counterfeit, why did he buy it?  I would also be curious -- I assume he keeps meticulous records -- why and for how much? Maybe he was curious; maybe he was young and inexperienced. Perhaps he had the better one in his possession and wanted to compare the two.

2.  During your @Mohawk"s absence, two collectors had vastly different approaches to the obverse side of the silver $20-dollar St. Gaudens I posted: a).  @RWB maturely pointed out that the head of the Statue atop the Capitol on the reverse, was facing the wrong way.

b). Another member responded by posting  an entire thread stating he had never "ignored," a person, but henceforth, would be doing so now. To make matters more interesting, he polled the entire membership asking whether they had ever done so, and why -- and after a decent multi-page interval, took a powder and was never seen or heard from again on this Forum.  Mind you, the crime I committed was two-fold: posting a lovely coin without provenance and suggesting @RWB was correct in extolling fluorescent light over incandescent illumination when examining coins which, initially, I was not in favor of.  One reader deferentially asked for the name of the offender. [ME]. The courtesy of a polite response by the OP was not extended to him..

Upshot:  Idhair -- and by my count, a score of people officially "ignore" me and those who choose not to, simply fail to respond to comments or acknowledge my presence. Listing myself as a follower of someone has irreparably damaged the reputation of many members, so I refrain from doing so.  In point of fact -- there is no way to prove this -- simply registering a "like" on a thread posted elsewhere by a member who has "ignored" me here has gotten me permanently banned, over there.  There is no discussion; no appeal. You no longer exist.  A man deemed civilly dead cannot be resurrected.  I have learned all this, however my mentor may feel, by simply paying attention. Will I renew my membership?  Absolutely! 🐓 

[ldhair]

[ldhair]

[ldhair]

[ldhair]

[ldhair]

[Coinbuf]

[ldhair]

[ldhair]

[ldhair]

[ldhair]

[ldhair]

[ldhair]

[ldhair]