1884-s BU Morgan "Super-Fake"

We were trying. Anyway, it's still unclear to me whether the 84-CC VAM 7 was used as a pattern for a die ("yikes!") or if the coin was used to make a sandwich coin. If this is a sandwich coin, it's technically not so much a counterfeit as it is a skilled alteration made from joining to coin halves together.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Silver and tungsten are significantly difference densities. Most likely, this is from a newer generation of Chinese counterfeits, and they use silver planchets of correct fineness.

The language in the article clearly points to this being a die-struck fake: "The long slender line on Liberty’s cheek is not present on genuine examples of this issue. In fact, some specialists will recognized that this exact die gouge appears on genuine 1884-CC Morgan Dollars, obviously the coin that served as the model for this counterfeit’s obverse. "

Also, a sandwich coin would show an obvious seam where the two halves were joined together. That would have been mentioned in the article, and would not have created a "super-fake" - a highly deceptive counterfeit that would fool many collectors.

All of these point to being a die struck counterfeit - they just used an 1884-CC as the obverse model.

I'll bet that if you ask over on the NGC boards, Dave Lange probably remembers this "coin" and could tell you more.

 

Thank you.

 

I would have caught it right away because it is simply too good to be true.

Saw a $5 liberty gold at an auction once that was Just too perfect and ignorant buyers paid too much. About a year later an identical coin walked (THAT alone is a spectacle) in my shop and I was able to have a closer look.

The reeds were the clincher.

 

Why then did they pick the CC with the die gouge when there were others they could have "patterned" off of that could have tricked us? Why did they pick the one with the red flag? It's not like that was their only choice. These were professionals, remember. That's their profile, if this is a counterfeit.

 

Time travelers.......happens all of the time.......these folks sometimes forget to wipe their shoes.........

 

This coin was classified as counterfeit because it exhibited an undocumented die gouge? Are we to assume that all 1884-S Morgan die pairings and die states have been discovered, mapped and cataloged? Surely the coin was rejected as genuine due to other undisclosed facts and reporting of the die gouge was for the purpose of informing the public of the counterfeit and its characteristics. Else the coin would have been designated as authenticity undetermined.

Could be the article was vague in how the coin was determined counterfeit for the purpose of protecting trade secretes or other reasons. Perhaps the coin was already known to be counterfeit and an example was provided solely for the purpose of being analyzed, identifying its unique characteristics and informing the public.

 

In the article it is explained:
The die gouge perfectly matched the 1884-CC obverse that had this gouge which has been documented.

 

No, we aren't to "assume" that in the scientific sense of "assume," implying a degree of certainty. But, what we_do_know is that the process of deliberately cataloging Morgan die pairs has been ongoing for over fifty years by one single living person (now with a bunch of help) and although new die pairings are still regularly identified, their rate of appearance is going down. As a result of the Pittman Act meltings, we know we'll never find them all. All the same, there are currently almost 5,000 VAMs listed and we've got a pretty good handle on how the whole thing works. Actually, 1884-S is a prime candidate for additions, since so few exist in researchable quality.

But when an 1884-S "die pairing" exhibits unique characteristics of a die specifically known to be from a different Mint in the same striking year, we can be reasonably sure it's a fake.

The "1884-S" in the CW article duplicates the 1884-CC VAM-7 obverse, right down to date location and MDS-LDS die crack pattern. This is not a coincidence. They chose that "donor" coin to have the appropriate date.

 

All I am suggesting is NGC may have had prior knowledge the coin was counterfeit before examining it. Which would allow them to examine this coin for a different purpose and from a different perspective.

 

Yes they are professionals, professional counterfeiters not numismatists. All they knew was they wanted an 1884 dated silver dollar to use for the pattern to create the obv die and they selected an 1884 CC dollar for the "model". They aren't VAMmers so they didn't realize the die gouge would flag it. To them one 1884 dated coin was as good as any other.

 

The more we discuss the reasons they went wrong, the more they learn how to do it better (I'm not going to use the word right because there is nothing right about what they're doing) By educating collectors we also educate crooks. Kind of a chinese finger trap, eh?

 

Throw it off on the individuals who had the resources, the knowledge, and the skill to counterfeit this coin were ignorant in their choice of the die. How believable is that?

 

How exactly are you surmising they did this? Are you saying they stole the die, or that they somehow recreated it from a coin? Or it's an altered mint mark? Now that I look closer at it, the S does look somewhat cockeyed.

 

Yes, this is exactly what we are saying.

Pick up the book "Numismatic Forgery." It goes into great detail about many different techniques of producing fake coins. It will be an enlightening read. It explains how they can pick up the details from the obverse of a genuine coin, and use it to make a die to create counterfeits from it.

 

Very

 

They either used an authentic 84cc vam 7 as a model to create a die or it's an authentic obverse of a cut down 84cc v7 morgan sandwiched together with a cut down or cupped authentic S mint Morgan reverse similar to a magicians coin.

 

I appreciate that, and if I had time, I would, as I'm sure it would be fascinating. But for now, I just want to know, is that the allegation? You're saying it is, and as I trust you know what you're saying, that answers it. Thanks.

 

Oh really? These are experts. They're that dumb, huh? You're that sure of that?

 

A hollowed-out magician's coin? Where in the article did it even suggest that? The article is a lynch mob. Isn't it?

Tagging @dcarr. This ought to be right up his street. Let's get the opinion of the Moonlight Mint on this...