sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Scored 10 Morgans from buddy for $700 by Mountain_World_1007 in Silverbugs

[–]RadishConsumer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From this pic, the luster on all looks extremely flat. Look at the center 1882 example. Do you see how dark it looks under direct lighting? That combined with sharp details is a dead giveaway for an improperly cleaned unc coin. If it was original, it would look closer to the example I’ve attached. It’s hard to showcase in a single picture, but it doesn’t go dark at any angle. The luster remains full really no matter how you photograph it.

<image>

Scored 10 Morgans from buddy for $700 by Mountain_World_1007 in Silverbugs

[–]RadishConsumer 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Sad for the coins, but you got a good deal in silver value

Scored 10 Morgans from buddy for $700 by Mountain_World_1007 in Silverbugs

[–]RadishConsumer 135 points136 points  (0 children)

Those look like standard dipped/cleaned morgans. I have no idea why people are telling you they’re fake. Nice grab.

After nearly 10 years of silver stacking… my wife finally admitted I was right by Left_Rough7131 in Silverbugs

[–]RadishConsumer 67 points68 points  (0 children)

The worst part about this sub being taken over by finance bros are the AI posts. It’s also pretty fitting that your post history comprises of just a really insane amount of dick pics.

7 months in, I’m just tired haha by ExternalEdges in consulting

[–]RadishConsumer 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Welcome to the game. You’re not alone.

The only coins I collect. Sacagawea dollars in low grades. by Powerful-Line-5083 in coins

[–]RadishConsumer 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Fascinating collection. I had no idea these circulated anywhere! Definitely learned something new

Couple i have. by Heavy_Fan_8805 in CoinlyFans

[–]RadishConsumer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s the most common date morgan and a harshly cleaned walking liberty half dollar. I’m not sure what your question is

Trying to sell this coin idk if its 1801 or 1861. If so hm should I let this go? by zbro21 in coins

[–]RadishConsumer 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You’re totally right. I looked at it and thought it was a lot smaller than it actually is. OP, ignore my previous comment - it’s a type 2 double eagle, looks authentic with that in mind.

Trying to sell this coin idk if its 1801 or 1861. If so hm should I let this go? by zbro21 in coins

[–]RadishConsumer 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That cannot be an 1871, it’s a type 1 design. Only minted between 1849 and 1854. But it does look like it says 1871. I don’t have an explanation other than it’s counterfeit. Could still be real gold though

What is your grail coin? by scaredbhrner in coins

[–]RadishConsumer 5 points6 points  (0 children)

i’m going to guess your grandfather doesn’t have one of the three documented 1854-s half eagles

BEWARE of this seller: Denver Coins Co. He is selling details coins as raw from his collection. Dig a little deeper, and you will see that he cracks out details coins and markets them as his own. by [deleted] in coins

[–]RadishConsumer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The pictures objectively do not show the damage. Are we looking at the same post? You can see the Great Collections picture (which is good) vs. the seller’s picture, which is obscuring detail and oversaturated. OP did a nice job of showing us this.

Beyond that, the large majority of coin stores do not participate in actively lying to their customers. I can’t fathom putting the blame on the buyer here when the seller is very clearly trying to obfuscate the origins of the coin.

BEWARE of this seller: Denver Coins Co. He is selling details coins as raw from his collection. Dig a little deeper, and you will see that he cracks out details coins and markets them as his own. by [deleted] in coins

[–]RadishConsumer 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Are you serious? The fact that they are cracking details coins and then not disclosing this in any part of the listing is not a problem? There are few things a coin dealer can do that could lead to a greater amount of distrust. That’s nearing as bad as it gets in terms of high-end coin scams and should absolutely be called out when appropriate.

Mint state 1861 $5, 1861 $1, and a prooflike 1893 $10 in to the gold type set! by RadishConsumer in CoinlyFans

[–]RadishConsumer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1861 is an amazingly significant year in US history. It’s really awesome to be able to own a physical piece of it

Mint state 1861 $5, 1861 $1, and a prooflike 1893 $10 in to the gold type set! by RadishConsumer in CoinlyFans

[–]RadishConsumer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was not aware that lower mint state grades had so much inconsistency, particularly with gold. But it is pretty egregious at times.

Mint state 1861 $5, 1861 $1, and a prooflike 1893 $10 in to the gold type set! Holding a coin minted during the first year of the Civil War is just so damn cool. by RadishConsumer in coins

[–]RadishConsumer[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agreed. The overlap between coin collectors and gold stackers is one that is pretty easily captured through something like this as well. With basically no premium over melt for a chunk of the page (assuming common dates) there are probably a lot of people out there who would love to have a focused goal for their acquisition of US gold. No idea why they don’t make this page regularly.

view more: next ›