Raw 1875-cc trade dollar real or fake

XF details

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'd say it is fake. The lower arrow does not end over the "2" in "420 GRAINS" for the '75 Trade.

 

I'm thinking that the is a genuine example, but has been made into an "opium" coin with a locket inside. Just a gut feeling.

 

XF Details. Environmental damage.

 

I never said nor remotely implied it was. In fact, the point I was trying to make to the other gentleman had little to do with counterfeiters or the Chinese. Again, apples to apples.. one still needs to know and understand what they're looking at before pointing the finger. It's a step in the process; nothing less or more.

 

Apples to apples, can you explain how to tell if an apple is rotten to the core without peeling it?

 

So I would say it's time to answer the question asked.....is the coin fake or real and how do we know ?

 

My point is that if a Chinese counterfeiter, knows all you know, and if able to counterfeit the coin as all you know, then all you know about this coin would be worthless, and in fact would be detrimental because you would buy counterfeit coins based on your own guidelines for authenticity.

Your way is the old school way of detecting counterfeits, and all I'm saying is that it's possible, if not likely, that the current or near future production of Chinese counterfeits may be beyond detection with old school ways, and we need to begin computer analysis in this regard sooner or later.

 

Perhaps, if you understood the meaning of context, I wouldn't need to.

The simple fact is that too many on this board are willing to point the counterfeit finger based upon nothing more than assumptions or conjecture, even if their intentions are noble. Silly me for thinking this should go without explanation, but when someone states the reverse is wrong after apparently comparing it with a different mint, correcting them shouldn't be viewed as unreasonable.

 

For the sake of discussion, I'll stick my neck out and provide a comparative analysis as to why I suspect this coin is a fake. Now, I'm hardly an expert on this series, but my hobby consists of studying minute details on coins such as shapes of numbers and letters...so I'll go with what I know.

Below is a closeup of the CC mintmark on the OP's coin, compared to a certified example of the same date off Heritage. If you look closely at the shape of the "C", the top serifs on the OP's coin are noticeably less thick diagonally compared to the certified example (light arrows). I don't think wear could reduce the weight of that serif. Then, the curvature on the bottom stroke of the "C" is less tight and thicker than the certified example, as shown by dark arrows. Finally, look at the inside of the main stroke--yellow arrows. On the certified coin, this is straight, while those on the OP's coin are curved. I also recall seeing these details before on proven $1 fakes bearing the "CC" mintmark. I'm waiting for the OP to divulge the answer...

 

This does not account for a different reverse die, nor does it account for the hand punching of the CC letters into the die. Which does not definitely prove one or another whether this coin is fake.

You would have to compare it to the exact same die marriage, not just the same date and mint mark.

 

Well, what you state does not explain why the shape of the "C" punch is vastly different on this coin. Before I posted, I studied several dozen reverses for this year from random, certified coins. Statistically, that should represent a large population, yet I did not see a match for the MM shape on the OP's coin. I would argue that these differences are significant, as they point to a different punch design. So either this punch was in use in 1875, or it wasn't. Such details matter a lot when you're looking for varieties as I do. I may have mentioned, I've recall seeing this same shape on CC mintmarks on proven fakes. I'm not trying to be contentious, only logical about this. So I'll wait to hear the final judgment on this coin, and adjust my opinion accordingly.

 

Im not saying you dont know what you are talking about, but there were 1.5 million coins made for this year and mint mark and I just think that the way you explained your process left out a good bit of info that can definitively make or break the diagnosis.

Your comparison amounts to the following per your reply.

You located a single graded example to compare the OP's coin to, which to me makes my point that it could just be a different CC punch, or an entirely different reverse pairing.

Secondly, you say that you have observed these same types of CC marks on other fakes, but for analysis purposes, that doesnt do me or the OP any good as we dont share your brain, nor can we even verify this information since no supporting photos of other fake coins with the same diagnostics were posted.

So, while your effort was extensive and you offered a reasonable explanation, it just leaves the issue wide open on whether or not this coin was a fake.

Basically what I am saying is that an outsider would have no idea where your answer came from and might just take your word for it, never realizing that your process is flawed for anyone other than you.

It amounts to this = We now know that the OPs coin is NOT from the same dies used against the genuine slabbed coin you compared it to. At least thats the only conclusion I can draw as of now.

 

First, thank you... this is what makes these threads better; a willingness to respectfully discuss.

Now, you seem to be going on the assumption that only one mint mark style was used. Is this true, or could it be that there were two/others? I will say that this info is out there and goes to the point of why what I was trying to convey to the other gentleman, regardless of what some other may think, is in fact important. Just food for thought....

Here is a link you might want to take a look at....

http://coins.ha.com/itm/trade-dolla.../1122-8666.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515

For the sake of fairness, I'm presently using a mobile device which is less than ideal for such comparisons. However, from what I can see, the date position (which is further to the right than usual) and the mintmark positions seem a match although I cannot say for sure until able to view on an actual computer. Please take a look and share your thoughts.

 

Yes, I only provided a single graded example of the mintmark area, but that's not because I "cherrypicked" one coin with the intent to contradict observed details on the OP's. Fact, is--I spent a couple hours looking at reverses for this year. I have not (yet) found a match to the mintmark position, nor a match to the mintmark "CC" style. I go to all this trouble because I study die varieties. Try it yourself--check the listings. Quite frankly, I think the burden of proof lies on finding a certified match. I find it interesting that you asked for proof, but when evidence is submitted, you dismiss it without any tangible proof on your end.

So show me this exact die pair on a certified coin--or let the OP tell us why it's real or fake. I'm all ears--and willing to change my mind when the evidence is presented.

 

"Here we have a raw 1875-cc trade. Is it real is it fake reasons why and thoughts on grade I'll post the answer Tuesday night"

Very interesting thread. But the coin is raw so any "answer" may just be the OP's opinion, considering all the different viewpoints throughout the thread. And of course with grading, if it is genuine since it is raw, it will really be just an opinion on the grade. Unless of course the OP shows that a TPG rejected it for slabbing which would be why it is raw.

"Seriously" - I'd like to know the one member who gave this coin the AU - I've got some really nice Florida swampland to sell, AU condition, only being used by a few alligators.

 

I'm in the XF cleaned crowd. If it's fake it would have fooled me.

 

Well, if it's fake it is a really, really good one. Little things like the odd bottom-heavy look of the date, and accurate representation of the slightest of strike weakness (this was one well-struck example when minted) beginning on the eagle's left foot argue in favor of authenticity. The dies are correct; you will only fail to see a Type Two Obverse on 1875-CC and this one's Type One/Type One anyway.

The only problem - and it's only a problem so far, "dealbreaker" status for the problem isn't certain yet - is the mint mark. This is a different position than the one linked by BooksB4Coins, and so far I've yet to see it in another example. With that said, I'm not even fifty coins into research yet and with a million and a half minted it wouldn't floor me to note a previously-unknown mint mark location either.

So call me "cautiously optimistic." For now.

 

Mr Bill,looks to be genuine to me but only XF details because of the hard scrubbing she got in the past....

 

Just guessing: TPG called it fake but Bill doesn't think so?