• 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.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

1882-S - Opinions Please

17 posts in this topic

The lighting used makes it difficult to get a real good sense of the coins surface. It look solid in the pictures, but I think the lighting could hide things that would be apparent in hand. Taken the pictures at face value I'd definitely go Gem on it. MS66 would be my guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like the other 65/66/67s in this box...

 

Hopefully, it's the lighting, as many of the coins look as if they might not even be genuine, to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like the other 65/66/67s in this box...

 

Hopefully, it's the lighting, as many of the coins look as if they might not even be genuine, to me.

Looks like the other 65/66/67s in this box...

 

Hopefully, it's the lighting, as many of the coins look as if they might not even be genuine, to me.

 

Must be the light Mark. I've handled tens of thousands of these from every grading service in every generation holder as well as raw, these are all as real as they come.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like the other 65/66/67s in this box...

 

Hopefully, it's the lighting, as many of the coins look as if they might not even be genuine, to me.

Looks like the other 65/66/67s in this box...

 

Hopefully, it's the lighting, as many of the coins look as if they might not even be genuine, to me.

 

Must be the light Mark. I've handled tens of thousands of these from every grading service in every generation holder as well as raw, these are all as real as they come.

 

 

Glad to hear it. Curiously, though, if you hadn't seen the coins and were judging solely by the images, what would you think about the coins?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the image objectively, I would think that the 1879 on the top left looked odd. This is because I would assume that it was an s, and it just doesn't look right for an s. It's actually a p, with very flat, almost proof like fields. Other than that, the others in the image look like they fit for the dates that I can see, and I have reference points in ngc and pcgs holders to compare to. The issue is that there is not enough focus to see the fine details. This is a limitation of the 200k max picture size on uploads, as I have to scale every pic way, way down to get to that size, and fine detail is lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the image objectively, I would think that the 1879 on the top left looked odd. This is because I would assume that it was an s, and it just doesn't look right for an s. It's actually a p, with very flat, almost proof like fields. Other than that, the others in the image look like they fit for the dates that I can see, and I have reference points in ngc and pcgs holders to compare to. The issue is that there is not enough focus to see the fine details. This is a limitation of the 200k max picture size on uploads, as I have to scale every pic way, way down to get to that size, and fine detail is lost.

 

Thanks - the missing detail is largely why the coins look off to me. You have confirmed that it's the imaging that's the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites