Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte
The coin could have been engraved in the 19th century. The obverse was altered, but the reverse was left alone. The wear on the reverse could have happened after the engraving through normal handling as with any coin. If the owner of the coin carried it with them as a memento they could very well have caused the wear, after the fact. Also, since the obverse is incised, it would be less susceptible to wear.
|
It seems the scratches left where the T was definitively show its removal was purposely done. I think the only question is why.
As to the proving of this without a doubt, I think it’s a high challenge without identifying the artist to date it, and that is where the initials could help vastly. The artist would be key.
Without any real knowledge I would say value could only be what a buyer believes in at purchase because we have no provable facts at this point. It definitely is a interesting item.
__________________
- Justin D.
Player collecting - Lance Parrish, Jim Davenport, John Norlander.
Successful B/S/T with - Highstep74, Northviewcats, pencil1974, T2069bk, tjenkins, wilkiebaby11, baez578, Bocabirdman, maddux31, Leon, Just-Collect, bigfish, quinnsryche...and a whole bunch more, I stopped keeping track, lol.
|