It has the reverse of a late-date capped half, not the 1812. Plus you can see the casting elements. Blobs of metal, etc...
Definite fake , look at the loss of detail in all the devises , along with the holes and globs of a cheap cast coin . Look at the eyes and mouth the lack of detail , no way the mint made this coin . Plus the globs on her face looks like she has zits .
How do you know the holes are from casting and not wear? I'm not doubting you, I'm just trying to understand how to see this. To my inexperience eye it looks fine.
If that alone was all we had to go by then we'd have to look at other things . But along with the blobs and holes , the details look like mush . Compare it to a real one and you can see the lack of detail in everything . The eyes and mouth are not complete and are rounded . The biggest test is if everything looked ok is to match the die charechtoristics to a known Overton # . Overton #s are use to tell which dies made that particular coin . But on this one since the casting is so obvious I didn't look . I used to be in the same boat as you when others would say fake , I'd say it looks ok to me . But now that I collect them I've gotten to know them and other markers of counterfeit coins . A good book if you can find it is PCGS Coin Grading and Counterfeit detection .
That would depend, 1 of 20 from a zero feedback psycho compared to 5% of 1000 - need to look deeper than just FB%. How about some non business guy who has 800 Pos FB in 12 years, but gets a ding from a low FB a hat and mr 800 hasn't sold but 3 things this year?
Pretty bad fake, feel bad for the people bidding...people should do their research before wildly bidding on coins. I'll report it as well.
Maybe I shouldn't of worded it that way . I should have said a 95% feedback is a red flag in my opinion to look further .