READ THIS! The Next Generation Of Chinese Counterfeits Have Arrived

@C-B-D Did you answer this question privately, or did I miss it? I was actually waiting to read your response...

Nevermind, I see it. You didn't get into any coin details.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Wait until we get one in a slab with a CAC sticker.

 

I didn't give a full answer. But I can share a little. First off, I sincerely doubt that they are 40% silver. The sound of them in their flips hitting the glass surface of a coin display case was unforgettable. It was flat. Sounded like base metal. The dealer who had bought and identified the five of them said they were 40% silver. I didn't ask how he knew that, but I'd be surprised if they had any silver content at all. What these fakes had going for them was a silver appearance. The "luster" albeit dull, was still apparent, so to me that's what made them a good fake.

 

Fake slabs, fine... I can both understand and agree with the logic, but with coins, please... it has nothing to do with doing good for the hobby or keeping info out of the hands of counterfeiters. Common sense dictates that not divulging such information is nothing more than a wise business move.

 

Thanks. What would you grade the coin pictured in the OP? More than AU?

 

And for a while now I limit my participation in CT threads to "guess the grades" and "look what I found" kind of topics. From my perspective, CT is unfortunately dominated by college debate majors, or seemingly narcissistic personalities who refuse to give heed to other opinions, especially if they are in stark contrast to their own. I know another member who used to be active and informative to us here on CT who no longer participates. In his words, "It became a wasteland of 'who can make the snarkiest comment.'"

 

I'd have called them about AU58. They didn't have the traditional booming luster of most AU58 Washington quarters. They were flat.

 

Unfortunately, I doubt anyone in charge really cares (@Peter T Davis) as long as they don't have to get involved in the conversations, aren't looking to be involved in any in-depth discussions, as long as they get to tinker with updates and send out birthday greetings. Priorities, I guess.

 

Maybe it's just the OP photo, but, I get the impression that the biggest flaw is the clear lack of a line, separation or crisp detailed space between the ponytail and the back of the neck. Let me know what you think from seeing them in hand.

 

Telling a counterfeiter what is wrong with his product has little affect on what he will produce in the future. His market is not those who know the difference; his market is the masses or those who are happy with a good looking copy. Telling the maker of a fake Gucci purse that he's using wrong materials or incorrect stitching isn't going to make him change his practices. Telling the maker of a fake Rolex that his mechanism is wrong isn't going to make him obtain better parts. Likewise, telling a coin counterfeiter that die marks, incorrect dimensions, incorrect finishes and incorrect materials isn't going to influence him to make corrections. He is happy with his product and he is happy with the market his product is aimed at. If a casual collector is happy with a >$25 coin that he gets for $1.25 I'm ok with that. A serious collector should be able to tell the difference. That's where education comes in. If a casual collector attempts the sale of a coin that he either knows, or doesn't know is a fake, the buyer who thinks that it may be genuine should know what to look for to determine its authenticity. Bottom line is, if you know a newly found coin is counterfeit, tell us what to look for so the rest of us aren't aren't so easily fooled. The counterfeiter doesn't care.

FWIW, I'll bet the OP didn't pick up on all the tells I pointed out in my posted pictures.

 

I didn't examine them long enough. They were passable in appearance but not audibly. And the look was that of a severely over dipped coin, or one that had been slightly reprocessed... not as harshly as those old Franklin Mint souvenirs, if you know what I'm talking about. Like those wall displays entitled, "Coins of the Old West,"(my mother in law still has one in her room, btw).

 

Nobody pitched a fit when I posted an informative "beware" on my indian cent, below. Seemed like everyone found it helpful. I'm glad @LostDutchman will give us the tells via PM, but I think the sudden fear of informing counterfeiters is pointless. Maybe all the hundreds of helpful "Watch out for this counterfeit..." threads will be removed from CT soon. Establishes consistency, anyway.
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/pretty-good-fake-for-everyone-to-study.256167/

 

Actually you missed several quite important ones and identified die cracks as supposed tooling marks on the reverse. Feel free to PM me and I'll break it down for you.

I agree with @C-B-D. These coins look like processed sliders. The lack of sharp lines is rather common on early Washington quarters and especially this date. They do have a strange ring to them tho... but the weight is right on. I am going to get the content independently verified with an XRF in the near future.

 

Pointing out the "tells" is only useful for a specific generation of a specific fake coin. The thread I have on modern counterfeit world coins no one goes into the diagnostics for specific coins. I believe it is more useful just to put the fakes in front of people's eyes so they can learn to recognize the appearance rather than relying on ever changing diagnostics. Sure, appearances can change too, but the appearances of genuine old coins do not. So that universal trained eye will be more valuable than even an encyclopedic knowledge of diagnostics of specific types.

 

Well actually I didn't name any of the points on the pictures as anything specific, they are just points to consider. There are many other points I didn't circle that point to the coin being questionable. If you compare the pictured coin stereoscopically with a coin known to be valid the errors are fairly easy to pick up on - the circled feather on the eagle's right wing is too wide, the checkering on the breast is incorrect, the spacing of some of the lettering is off, etc. The first most telling detail, to me, is the extreme pebbling of the fields, especially below the eagle on the reverse. There are many die gouges or scratches visible under magnification. The die "polishing" looks like it was done with 220 grit sandpaper. There are also many marks which might be best described as "PMD" but which might have been made as part of the minting process. I'm not a big name expert but I can tell this coin is a fake. And you serve no one by hiding the "evidence" you have from those who aren't sure.

 

Tool marks are long, straight, and appear raised on the coin. Because they're actually on the die, they're struck into the coin. Bag marks are basically small nicks and scuffs on the coin. They're easy to spot by rotating the coin under a strong light.

 

those coins are so easy to pass on as real mix some of them in with some real ones sell as a lot thats how people probably do it. I would never sell a fake but a lot will look on ebay

 

For someone who is brand new to coin collecting, this is a frightening proposition. From reading the thread it is almost made out that you can't trust raw coins or even slabbed ones. One of the posters said he has Ikes that are fake and I never would have thought it would be worth someone's time to fake one of those.
I know that it's about studying and knowing who you are buying from as well as what you are buying but seeing how prevalent counterfeiting is makes it quite intimidating.

 

what would the coin be worth if it was real?