1884-s BU Morgan "Super-Fake"

Won't fool a VAMmer though

http://www.coinweek.com/counterfeits/counterfeit-coin-detection-a-morgan-dollar-super-fake-revealed/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

How could it be a "Super-Fake" if it won't pass a cursory examination from anyone familiar with varieties of the series in question?

 

That is one of the biggest benefit's of the VAMing community. The extensive library to call upon to authenticate the rarer coins.

 

Dang, that fake is scary good. Would have fooled me, for sure!

 

I did not see in the article if it was made from something magnetic or did they actually use silver? We have one that purchased as fake just to study what was being done. Our purchase proved to be too light and magnetic, which is a dead giveaway. But if the weight of this one was within tolorance then that is a whole new ballgame. VAMing definitely helps.
http://www.1881o.com/fake1.html
Ours was also done in something crude like a sand casting and had other errors. But this one looked like they made a high quality die.

 

If I'm looking at buying a $30 Morgan Dollar I'm figuring out what VAM it is before even figuring out the grade. With a six figure Morgan the buyer had damn better be doing the same.

 

If it's the correct weight and dimensions it has to be either silver or tungsten I believe. It is strange that they don't mention that though.

 

The article is dated May 30, 2017.

The only comment is dated August 17, 2015.

Help me understand...?

Did they re-print the article and put a new date on it?

 

I have a tungsten ring it is very heavy. Tungsten and gold have almost the same density, tungsten is twice the density of silver.

 

It even has die breaks, would of fooled me also.

 

Thanks for the info, @Michael K. Very interesting. Google gave me these numbers:

Gold: 19.30g/cm3
Tungsten: 19.25g/cm3
Lead: 11.34 g/cm3
Silver: 10.49 g/cm3

 

Yeah. I must have been thinking of gold. Anyway, if this is die struck why not use silver. They can sell it for many hundreds on the dark web so <$20 in material cost per is nothing. This is so deceptive to the average person it could be sold on eBay for thousands to a speculator thinking he got an awesome deal and can flip it on Heritage or the like.

 

I think this whole article is a little goofy. For instance, were this counterfeit, obviously these were no amateurs who did it. This article would have us believe they overlooked an obvious die gouge right smack in the center of the profile that any fool collector or not couldn't overlook. That doesn't seem to make sense. Why isn't this from another die? There were 3.2 million of these minted.

 

What is unclear from the article is whether this is a struck counterfeit or a sandwich coin alteration made from a genuine 84-CC VAM 7 obverse and a genuine S-mint reverse (probably 79-82). I really hope this is a sandwich coin. There is a rim defect on the obverse at 8:00 and a smaller one on the reverse at 5:00.

 

Because 1884-S is difficult to find in Mint State, and will cost you five figures if you actually find one. They had to use what they could get.

Here's a problem: There aren't enough VAMs identified for the issue to account for the total mintage, figuring an "average" die life.....

 

A large part of the mintage was likely melted, and the rest entered circulation, making attribution a little more difficult.

 

Yeah, it would take some standout features to attribute a new pairing based on a VF coin. Dirty little VAMming secret.

 

I see. Edited: Yeah, very well-reasoned at NGC. Good they and their tiny brains are just sticking to something stupid, like coins.

 

Weren't we talking about how the counterfeiters came up with a pattern coin for their work?