1891 CC Morgan Silver Dollar Just got this today!

This may have been true years ago, but the Chinese have been making counterfeits the last 10 years using the very equipment the US Mint used in the 1800's.

Chris

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I didn't say all casts had to be out of weight tolerances, I just said if a coin is out of weight tolerances it is highly suspect. But you do bring up the fact that today's counterfeits are increasingly realistic and difficult to discern. I'm only discussing casts, though; when it comes to fakes that use Mint striking methods your only tools are looking for repeating depressions and other diagnostics that are generally present on counterfeit strikes. I'm sure you'd agree that a weight test showing a coin to be 15% below Mint tolerance is a great way to determine a cast copy.

 

For XF or higher grades, I would assume forgery right off the bat for anything over a 1% tolerance. XF and above have almost no wear loss, so they should be within mint tolerances. Just my opinion.

If it is within tolerance, at least you should know its real or of good silver. At least then its worth near the price paid. Its the cheap copies that are really valueless.

 

I would be very surprised if the first coin is a fake. It definitely looks good to me.

 

I'm going to weigh it tonight, but I have a cheap eBay scale. Not sure if it's very accurate. I weighed a quarter that was in my pocket with it and it shows 5.77 grams

 

2005 quarter is 5.77 a 1965 quarter is 5.62 ...

 

No, I don't agree. Counterfeits struck on planchets using different base metals can be cause for underweight. A careful examination of the surfaces of a cast copy is more appropriate.

Chris

 

I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense to me. You're saying an underweight coin could be a counterfeit coin instead of a cast coin; in either case, haven't we determined that a coin is not genuine using a weight test? Surfaces aren't enough for casts either, unless you're highly skilled, as the pitting caused by environmental corrosion (especially for metal detector finds) can look just like the depressions in a cast copy. When you're trying to determine the genuineness of a coin, you use the biggest diagnostics first and work your way down. That would be the physical parameters, like weight, specific gravity, magnetic susceptibility etc.

In what circumstance would buying a coin that is 15% underweight be a good idea, assuming one is looking for an authentic coin? And also assuming 15% of the mass isn't vacated by a stylish hole in the middle?

@Simon, those measurements are 0.10 and 0.05 grams off from the 'standard weight,' respectively. This is around 1% deviation from the standard, which should generally confirm that those coins are made of the right stuff. Although we know how heavily fake casts plague the 1965 and 2005 quarter series...

 

I agree to some extent, but don't under estimate the current batch of Chinese counterfeiters. There's a ton of fake Morgans out there that were struck on 90% silver planchets, with weight and specific gravity dead on.

 

Well, this baby is genuine, and she weighs approximately 13% under:

 

I thought the 'mass lost to wear' clause in my statement was adequately explicit, even with the joking hole remark. Working on this assumption, your sarcasm is met with a slight smirk and a rolling of the eyes :rollling:

 

Put me at the top of the list of skeptics. The patina of this coin is what makes it suspect to me. Note how there is a lighter area along the top of Liberty's cap and along the bottom of her hair above the date and righthand stars. It looks like the patina has been "laid on". You would normally associate this overall coloration with a coin that has seen a lot of circulation, yet the condition of the devices is still very good. As a rule, a heavily circulated coin will have more of a gray patina on both sides, but this coin has a different color on the reverse. Despite the technical accuracy, it doesn't look right.

I remember reading the 2-part interview in 2008 that Coin World had with one of the biggest Chinese counterfeiters in Shanghai. In it, Jinghuashei (internet name) told that it costs him 50c to produce a counterfeit Morgan, and he can use chemical means to age it.

Chris

 

Chris,

We will have to agree to disagree. To me this looks like an honest coin with a normal patina. There is even some original mint luster hiding in the devices on the reverse. I haven't seen the Chinese do that yet... I see 50 coins a week that look just like this. This is what they look like when they tone naturally and no one has boogered with them yet.

I think counterfeit madness has taken over!

 

She (Susan Headley) was also able to fool a number of dealers at the F.U.N. convention that year with her collection of Chinese counterfeits... and the fakes have improved since then.

 

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter if a counterfeit coin is struck on a planchet or cast. They are both counterfeit. Therefore, the weight test is an indicator of a counterfeit coin, not just a cast coin.

Chris

 

Susan Headley is messing with Chinese counterfeits now? I remember her when she first got into uncleaned Roman coins. Small world.

Overall, I thought the first two looked plausible, and agree with LD, but the third coin concerned me. I also agree to START with size and weight, those are easiest to tell. If those are good, and given the amount of wear the weight should be within spec, then a discussion could be had about the coins. I hate discussions like this without the coin in hand, pics to me, even when well taken, still are hard to comdemn a coin by.

 

To me the 91cc looks good as does the 99s... the 80 however causes some concern. The details seem slightly off. It also appears that the surfaces are not correct in the obverse left field. The slight misalignment in the dies is also cause for concern. I'm not out and out saying it's no good... but that would have to be one seen in hand to determine it's authenticity.

 

With you on those, Matt. The '80 looks off, kind of mushy on the details, a die misalignment that I've never seen on a Morgan in hand, and I'm not sure you won't find a seam on the edges. I don't see anything immediately wrong with the other two.

 

I'm new to morgans and I just bought the same date morgan. I didn't get it for 35$ but it looks to be in really good shape. This wil be my first C too, coingrats.

 

I HATE COUNTERFEITS!!! I'm still at work waiting to go home to weigh them. But even that wont ease my worries