1877-s Trade Dollar... Please tell me it's not a fake

About ANACS for authentication , I sent a PM to Doug , he said it was good in the past but that they have missed a few recently , and though there are still some very good authenticators there now , he wouldn't use them as there are now . I trust Dougs words on most coin matters so now it's the top 2 or nobody .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Yup. He makes almost nothing when we include the mailing cost.

 

For future reference and the edification of anyone who finds themselves in my shoes at a later point in time, here are the problems found with my fake (some can only be seen in person w/ a loupe):

1) no compression marks in-between the reeded edges
2) numerous depressions on reeded edge
3) Crooked denticles
4) Reeded edge is crooked
5) "N" in the word ""IN" is misshapen
6) Casting marks (very faint)
7) Eagle's eye should be half open (I looked for this and could not tell)

The rest are "concerns", but by themselves would not necessarily mean a fake:

* uneven wear
* porousity
* width of left arm at elbow

(this info from a dealer with 30+ years of experience; dunno how right he is...)

 

Oh, and 8) the most mark is way too big

 

If you have photoshop - do an overlay of an image of your coin over an image of a known authentic example.

 

That was cast , wow I missed that . I also thought the eagles eye looked ok . I don't see how it was cast and the eye changed , also amazing they got the weight right with a casting . I'd love to see that coin in hand though . Glad you got your money back .

 

I haven't mailed it back yet if you wanna drive to Pennsylvania ;-)

 

Thanks , but It's a long drive from Chicago .

 

Who told you that, and were they speaking about the mintmark on your coin?

 

Yeah. Auto-correct got me. "Mint mark" is too big. That from dealer #4; not sure how long he's been in the business.

 

Thanks for the friendly response. Now, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but he is 100% WRONG. Earlier in the thread you linked a photo of a superb gem specimen which does show a small mintmark, but this specimen is of the micro mintmark variety and is not representative of all 77-S examples. Here is a link (from the same site) that explains this if you scroll down.

http://www.tradedollarnut.com/Home Page/Home first links/dates/1877/1877S.htm

 

Well, as in most things in life, ask 4 people, get 4 different answers. I was just furiously writing stuff down. Once he knew it was fake, I think his ego got away from him.

 

According to Breen there is a large S mm for the 1877 .

 

Perhaps, but do you really trust this guy, especially when wrong about something so obvious?

Take a look at this image and tell me what you see and think (and yes... I am trying to help you):

 

I would have to pull the book out to see what he claimed, but the link in my last post and those below may be of interest to you, especially since you (if I remember correctly) mentioned marriages earlier in the thread.

http://blog.davidlawrence.com/index.php/1877-s-trade-dollar-reverse-varieties/

http://blog.davidlawrence.com/index.php/collecting-us-trade-dollars-by-die-marriage/

 

Thanks a million , I've been looking for info like this on the TD series , but especially for thw 1875 S Type I / Type II reverse Micro S . I'd love to get back into Trade dollars but the lack of information and their cost caused me to Switch to the Bust Half series .

 

You're very welcome, sir, and if I stumble across anything that may help... Also, perhaps it would be worth looking into the Gobrecht article.

 

And not to beat a dead horse, but when you drop it, it sounds like silver.

(sorry if I said that already)

 

Oi Vay! Give it up with this Trade Dollar and move on. Send it back, or write it off as a learning experience.

 

You're not beating a dead horse, so don't worry about it.

Perhaps I should have made the point clearer, but have you looked at the photo in post #74? It is an overlay with your coin as the base and a slabbed 77-s at 50% opacity on top. While just a quickie job that's far from perfect and is not definitive proof of anything, I still thought that you may find this interesting.