Raw 1875-cc trade dollar real or fake

After looking at BooksB4Coins link , I only have one question . If more than one punch was used . As KurtS said the C's are different . In Books Links they are close in distance between and shape , but the shape is different . As Kurt said the inside lines are straighter though the right C has a slight Curve , it's still not a match . I was in the EF Details camp , now I'm undecided . Great discussion , I wish all threads were like this one is now headed .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Here is my analysis: neither side of the coin is beautiful. Like a cheap handbag... no matter how close it comes to the real deal, it just doesnt cut it. But I am a noob, so all I can do is tell it like I see it.

 

Were having fun with this one. I'll keep it going to tomorrow night as I originally said

 

Not falling for that trap. I was only suggesting the response that you wrote was insufficient to convince anyone that your conclusion was correct. That's it.

None of us know that you spent 'several hours' looking at coins, nor what coins you looked at.

Again, I'm glad you went through all that trouble. I do not have that much interest in the matter which is why I don't care to go find my own examples. I was merely stating that what you wrote was insufficient to convince others of your own conclusion.

 

Point taken.......welcome to the forum.

 

I agree with Hommer. Looks like too many little casting voids on the corners where they would show up. Wrong kind of damage. I wouldn't trust it.

 

What trap? Look--if someone were selling this coin, the burden of proof would be on them to prove it's genuine. I actually posted some visual diagnostic information to compare and discuss. I honestly don't care if you believe I did the research, but if you have a point to make, why not show us something concrete, I mean other than a 'tude? Apparently, there's difference indicated to give others pause--they said so.

No "conclusions" here--only suspicions. I'll wait for the OP's answer.

 

"'tude."

 

Ok I bought this one raw and knew I was looking at a genuine 1875-cc trade with an old cleaning which has since retoned but of course the surfaces look off. I called it an au-50 details here's what pcgs said

 

Nice grab. I was pretty sure that it was genuine but started doubting myself after some of the posts. Good to know the gut still works.

 

Mainebill,
The other gentleman says, "Thanks for the education."
Great thread.
Keep them coming.
Good luck starting your coin business...

 

I will buy a raw trade anytime if I can see it in hand I see a lot of them at shows that are genuine. Many are cleaned ot damaged a lot are totally original vf-xf but there all 1877 1877-s or 1878-s and I have a hard time selling those dates in those grades just too common

 

Shoulda known with me. Wanted to have some fun with all the naysayers especially with the messed up surfaces on this one. I had extremely high res pics taken just to have a little fun and they showed every detail and flaw.

 

One of the many facts that make trade dollars so tough is along with the many fakes both old and new is there's never been a definitive study on die varietys so it can be very difficult to attribute a genuine one from a fake. Add to that at least 50% of slabbed business strike trades have problems and far more then that of raw ones their not a coin for the novice especially raw. But their beautiful!! And challenging. And I like a challenge

 

AU - I always thought AU meant "Almost Uncirculated" - PCGS must have been having their office party that day with some strong punch to call that coin almost uncirculated. If I had bought that coin, sight unseen, with that AU grade, I would have been outraged. That's my opinion.

 

Real and a rare die marriage to boot although one that nobody cares about. That Rev die is shared with the very rare 1876cc type 1/1 plain CC non-DDR. I have seen worse in xf45 holders.

 

I have that very coin in my set and it is much much worse than yours
Variety set
http://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase.aspx?sc=1220

Worse example of the coin, note MM and the top of the I in America


Very rare coin that shares it's rev die

 

As I said nobody's really researched them. Thanks a lot for the info. Knowing about the reverse die marriage makes me like it better. I've seen a lot worse in clean graded holders too. I thought a 50/50 whether they'd pass it or not. And a 99.9% chance it was genuine. To me in hand it's solidly an au-50. I've seen worse in 53 holders and better in 45 holders go figure

 

Just remember that the difference between 45 & 50 comes down to surface rub. You can have Au meat but xf skin it it will or should be an xf if there is under a certain percentage of mint textured surface left.

 

Good point. Especially with the unevenness of strike quality then