1870 CC Seated Dollar -- Authentic?

Nope. I don't see a nick in that spot on the known Chinese fake. I do see kind of a bleb on the Chinese dollar that matches up with a flat spot that shouldn't be as flat as it is on my friend's coin.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That's the first one I found also. Want to keep playing?

 

Looks like a Chinese fake

 

OK, I may be wrong on that one. Try this: Follow the line of the pole down to the upper leg. Now, go up the leg about1/4 inch to the next dress fold before you reach the belly. There is a definite match 1/8 inch up that fold.

 

pimply, mushy, malformed dentils, pits. Chinese fake IMO
here is a real one to compare

 

Obv of the OP coin matches the No-No coin but the rev is from a different die.

 

The "markers" on the reverse are more important as the obverse of this one can only be used on 1870 dated coins. The reverse can be used on all cc's.

 

IMO it is the same die match. Follow a line from the "D" through the "N" and to the wing. There is a hit on the edge of the left wing. Agree?

 

Okay... I didn't say not imply otherwise. The OP asked a question, and I assumed wanted more than the usual vague explanations, so I answered to the best of my abilities. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it), this example just happened to display an identifier familiar to me. Nothing less and nothing more.

 

Not even a particularly good fake.

 

Please, please don't take my comments other than THANKS for the info! This "contact match game is good training." It develops our eye-for-detail and I'm surprised I could find anything from photos. I figured you had this puppy all "mapped-out" and was waiting to see all the "markers" I missed. I also wanted the OP to have a chance to play along. If I had the equipment, I'd post the coin and circle what I've found like they do at NGC for the counterfeits they post.

Long ago, many professionals didn't wish to release any "markers" so the fakers could not improve their work.

I'm leaving work now but later in the week I'll reveal some of the other markers I see. That way the OP and others can give it a try.

 

The hand is off , mostly it makes it look like there's an extra finger . Good post Books as I didn't like the MM .

 

Thanks... I didn't like the mintmark(s) either, but can't see them well enough on this small screen to comfortably say, with absolute certanty, that they were bad. I've become so used to using a mobile device that following threads on the computer now feels like unnecessary work.

 

You are correct. I probably should have spotted this one based on the CC alone.

I think it would be great if someone annotated my friend's pics with the markers.

Sounds like fun! Wish I could change the title of this post now.

 

I don't like the strokes of the digits - especially the 1 and 0 - in the date. The MM location seems a tad low for 1-A, but that might be the photography. For the record, a lot of little things, relationships between letters and star locations to the denticles and such, *do* work for Variety 1-A; I don't know if they're diagnostic or not.

I'm not at all confident in the authenticity of the coin.

 

Agreed but I believe that nick in the wing was probably on the coin they used to create a reverse hub that they used to make both dies. The mintmark placement on the two reverses are different. The left C is noticeably further away from the tip of the feather on the OP coin than on the no-no coin.

If you check out other seated dollars on the no-no site you will probably find other dates and mints with that same nick in the wing.

Just did a quick look and found an 1867, 1871, and an 1872 CC all with the same nick in the left wing. That's four dates over 6 years from 2 mints, all with the same nick. Clearly the nick was in the original coin they used for a model.

 

Mushy denticles weak star definition and just a plain "off" look. And the nick on the arm. Fake. Just like turkey bacon is fake

 

Thick cut apple wood smoked Wright's bacon. Oh, and that seated $ is fake chinese junk.

 

You are correct about the CC's. Different dies.

This is the best info on the pair for us + the other dates you found.!