It is if you know anything about Morgans. No Morgan, even the proofs or DMPL's had that kind of look. The date font is a joke. Mint mark style is completely wrong. And a beaded border? All that condemns it even without COPY on the eagles breast. Which by the way is NOT in compliance with the HPA rules for marking replicas. COPY has to be incuse in san-serif lettering.
I think the copy seems reasonably stamped, even if it is not in compliance. However, yes to everything you just said.
HPA doesn't say you only have to stamp exact replicas, you have to stamp anything that purports to be an original numismatic item. So if it looks a lot like a coin or token it has to be stamped.
When I said "isn't immediately visible", I meant that from afar, or to a non-experienced collector. The copy's still not that bad. I've seen cheaper, more careless copies of coins.
What's "lol" supposed to mean in your sentence? Are you trying to allude that I have never seen a Morgan Dollar before, or are you trying to turn my complement to SchwaVB57 for purchasing a nice replica into a laughable statement?
I posted the thread as a joke in kind. I bought the TOKEN because I will never own a 93 S and it fills a hole in my album. As for trying to fool anyone, the TOKEN will never fool anyone that collects Morgan Dollars or anyone that has any basic coin knowledge. I like it and the number one rule of collecting should be buy the specimen, never the label or pedigree.
Nice hole filler, although owning one would probably make me want to get the real thing...someday....