Researching several interesting 1849 Liberty Seated Dollars and organizing the details so far. The original study example turned up while investigating a specific suspicious "coin" of another denomination that lead to a damaged and repaired example in that case and broadened my approach in looking for other potentially bad examples- the 1927-s Liberty Standing Quarter I previously reported on in this venue followed the same path. Starting with this holed example sold on the internet I tried to visualize what the repaired state would look like and if that vision would match any other example's images available within my standard search process. And as has happened in many of these quickly found a potential "match". Although the images of the holed example are poor, a comparison image between these two show several key common marks; one of the major ones is the set of damaged, non-parallel shield lines and a couple of obvious "dents". One odd feature that shows on the 2nd example is the "dot" over the "A" in AMERICA, which is NOT a feature on any 1849 Seated Dollar, so this along with the shield lines should aid in determining if there may also be any struck counterfeits of this one "out there"! The following image shows these two examples in comparison to a known genuine example: The other clue in searching for others is the obvious repair of the hole (Duh!) and the re-engraving particularly of the "E" of ONE. The following image also shows these two examples in comparison to a known genuine example: It can be seen in this image the shape and proportions of the "E" is out of kilter to a genuine one. With these key attribution points and possible common sister marks the search was on for other examples. As a side note, I was actually reviewing these two examples and search parameters with my son-in-law over a previous Christmas break and as he watched we found a second possible example- and then a third! Keying on the shield damage we reviewed the following two and their reverses: A friend who helps with overlays developed the following images; things appear to line up well, especially the shield lines and the "dot". And comparing the three reverse shield images show definite matches: The question at this point is what I state in all of these researched suspect coins, which is "Live or Memorex"? That becomes very subjective only from images and may not ever be completely answered but it is clear there is at least one counterfeit here... But wait, there's more! The research continued for more suspect examples through continued searches and suspect internet seller's wares reviewed, and another example was found for sale in an internet venue and I have exceeded my limit for images!!! So, I'll have to add them later, but even the poor images show direct matches to most of the marks although the shield lines appear "straighter", maybe due to the quality of the images or possibly an attempted repair; the search for these scourges to the Hobby will continue with an effort to "get the word out" to the collecting public. Regards, Jack.
I always love to read your posts Jack. You have contributed so much research and knowledge. These posts are always so fascinating. Thanks for all you do and continue to do to help keep the hobby well protected to the best of your ability.
I have added the last two images I couldn't in the original post. As stated in previous summaries I developed a list of bad internet sellers and patiently watch their posts- review past ones and new items listed. This example showed up in one of those searches: The image on the left is the "new" example compared to the second example on the right. The more images to review the more common marks seem to appear! Finalized summary article in the near future...
This is where it gets even more interesting! Snowed over the weekend and I had more time to search and found a raw internet example from 2014; images are poor but good enough to match some of the reverse marks. The toning of this example appears to match as well. More work to do on this one!
Very detailed and laborious work as usual, Jack , and extremely interesting and useful for collectors of these coins (like myself!) For my clarification: As I understand it, one of the major indicators toward detecting counterfeits are marks they share with the original (genuine) specimens. If this is the case, would a further, yet more devious refinement be to 'repair' the marks in the first copy, so as to produce subsequent copies free of these tell-tale marks? I hope it never reaches that stage.....
You are correct Eduard; in my article on the counterfeit 1803 C-3 half cents there are actually two varieties- a few of the marks were reduced and another detail added to make them different, but there were still enough marks to identify them and the added detail was wrong for the variety and also stood out. There are other indicators when you have an example in-hand which I don't discuss in these posts or summary articles though.
Marks and characteristics originating from the source coin which are transferred to the counterfeit die during the die's manufacture.
Exactly justafarmer; I have called the obvious differences to a known example from repairs/ tooling "attribution marks", dents, scratches etc. "circulation marks" and in general all common marks "sister marks".
There’s coin collecting and then there’s numismatics, this is a great example of the ladder. Thanks for another very informative post Jack.
