I know this coin has already been the subject of 2 threads, but I posted a new one so I could show people why it is in fact counterfeit. Many of the letters are poorly formed, there are several raised bumps, as well as several raised tool marks, most noticeably a k-9 on the reverse and k-2. This is actually a commonly encoutered counterfeit for 1955. Many of them also having the same diagnostics will show a die crack on the reverse. I have circled several areas on the coin.
Zaneman, Thanks for sharing pics of the coin and the info! It will come in handy in the future! For a Counterfeit, I must say that the details on Miss Liberty...especially the hairlines and the details of the Headdress are unusually well done. Most of the ones I have encountered, have indistinct and somewhat mushy details in these areas. Frank
I can't tell from the photos but I think that the hair may have been engraved on this example. Most counterfeits encountered of this series aren't quite as good as this one IMO.
the Numismatist was talking about this exact thing a few issues back - they even mentioned the raised portions, etc. may i ask who slabbed it?
Omega counterfeited this series quite flawlessly, didn't he ? I know there is far fewer than the Saints, but I thought he done the $3 as well. I seem to remember it necessary to look in the loop of the "R" in LIBERTY for the Omega symbol.
it is omega i am referencing (from the ANA's Numismstist) if i remember correctly... but then again his(?) work is usually better than this being that the hair is a bit ostentatious for omega... his saint's were nearly flawless - he signed those near the talon right?
On the Saints, the Omega symbol was located within the clutches of the eagles claw. Yes, his work is MUCH better than the OP's coin. Omega's work is only detectable by his mark, as far as I know.
Hey. I was the unfortunate guy who bought that coin, and am battling to get my money back. The problem was, that the coin was originally in a bezel and purchased from aboncom. Anyways, here is the original listing. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=300203080580&ssPageName=STRK:MEWN:IT&ih=020 I've been studying these coins intently since my purchase. Here is an example of an 1855 on ebay(terrible pics), but i see a lot of similarities between this coin and mine(except the ridiculous price the seller is asking). The obverse is hard to see, but the reverse looks a lot like mine. I smell a fish here. http://cgi.ebay.com/1855-3-Princess...ryZ39468QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Wow. Uncirculated AND a jewelry piece! What an opportunity. Never mind the scratch or mark or whatever on the reverse. I would never consider using such a nice coin in my neckle.
This is a very poorly made struck counterfeit. Some things I've noticed. The denticals are slightly seperated and "toothy" as well as being uneven. There are numberous raised pimples, and toolmarks. Intially when I first saw the coin I did not notice the toolmarks. Several spikes from the denticals of the coin are also a bad sign it is counterfeit, although Bill Fivaz in his counterfeit detection book notes that 3% of struck gold coins with spikes are actually geniune. So to deem this coin counterfeit there should be more than one problem, which there is. To make die struck counterfeit gold, a geniune host coin is used in a transfer die process. The geniune coin is sacrificed to make counterfeit dies, which then make the coins. All coins struck by that counterfeit die will have the same features. Generally the first coins struck by counterfeit dies look more prooflike, unrealistic. As the die wears out this changes and the coins look more decieving. It would be interesting to see if this could has any depressions. Tilt the coin under a bright incandescent bulb and look for linear or depressions. Depressions are contact or bagmarks that were on the orginial geniune coin sacrificed to make the counterfeit coins. They should have luster in them, and be the same texture of the rest of the field and have soft, rounded edges. Rotate the coin 60 degrees to see them. The depression should blend to the rest of the field, whereas a contact mark on a geniune coin would stand out because it would be shiny on the outside part of the contact mark/bagmark. Hope this helps
The $3 Omegas were 1882's. And although the Omega coins were "state of the art" when they were first identified, they aren't held in as high a regard among counterfeits today. There are now better ones out there.
Very helpful. Thanks, GCL ! I just want to clarify something, to be absolutely sure : This is referring to the counterfeit, yes ? One other question : Do strike counterfeiters ever "fix" the die i.e. make changes to it after original creation ? Analagous to altering a struck coin. Similar skill set, too.
Thanks Conder ! I remember reading about the $3 Omegas in one of Scott Travers' books, but I don't recall him noting a date. Thanks for the info.
Yes, and yes. Sometimes counterfeiters see imperfections in the die so they fix it, to try and cover their tracks. This is what causes toolmarks or raised lines on the counterfeit coin.
I suppose the best ones (or worst...) polish or basin the dies to cover their tracks even more. How often do counterfeiters get busted ? Maybe we should show them the movie Papillon. That oughta scare 'em.
