1895 O Morgan for comments

I've had this 1895 O for a long time. It has been worn considerably and harshly cleaned. I think that has an impact on thickness, diameter and weight. I does ring like a normal dollar. The specifications are: weight 25.86, diameter 37.78 and thickness 2.43. It looks legit to me. I have attached 5 photos.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think it’s a cast fake. It looks like there are a lot of casting pits including some on the edge. Casting would also explain the slightly smaller diameter.

 

Thanks for your evaluation.

 

I think it is fake. The mint mark looks suspicious

 

I think fake as well casting pits causing the granular look on the surfaces

 

Thanks for your comments. The mint mark looks like it took a hit from something. So, I didn't want to use that condition alone to judge.

 

It may well be an old cast copy but when I look closely I can't determine that. I think what looks like castibgnpits are actually bag marks, damage and genuinecwesr and tear on a semi-key date that was well circulated. The all around wear on the coin has made any damage look like a cast copy. The weight and diameter all are within specs.

Have you ever had it tested or authenticed? Have you taken to a coin show or your LCS and asked for their opinion? Photos are sometimes hard to make a correct identification. Despite the wear, the details look sharp, not mushy.

 

I have the same feeling about the nicks and scratches. They look like they are from wear and tear. It is obvious that it has been harshly cleaned at one time. That surface is not typical of a fake. I have had it longer than I can remember. And, I have never taken it to a coin show that may have any kind of expert. Thanks for the feedback.

 

There is so much that looks right and what looks wrong is explainable, at least to me. You're welcome for the feedback but I would take to a LCS or a coin show and get their opinions.

 

Since you have had it longer than you can remember, the chances of it being a modern cast copy are greatly reduced....no reflection on your age...I am only three years younger.

I too do not see evidence of it being a fake.

 

Cast counterfeits were prevalent in the 70s. I recall reading many articles in the weekly coin publications and The Numismstist. I recall some of the key characteristics were casting pits ( small bubbles), especially in the edges. Akso, The diameters were slightly smaller because the casting shrank as it cooled.

If you have a chance, you may want to see if the Newman Numismatic Portal has old issues of NN and CW. @Insider write a column that had great explanations and pics

 

Someone posted a video of the "Slide test" - I can't find the thread but it looked easy enough to set up - might tell you if it isn't silver.

 

Idk what a modern cast looks like - but to me it kind of looks like it could have been coated. On the edge I see globs & some of the grooves seem to be filled in...

 

coating would also account for the "pitting"...just my 2 cents

 

It is not magnetic. It has a nice ring to it. I will set up and do the ice test later. Some of what looks like fill also looks like circulation damage. It is quite worn.

 

I am taking all these comments and searching for a resolution. It has seen a very harsh cleaning. That could have included corrosive material. We will keep after it.

 

A casting would have a separation line somewhere wouldn't it? Or the indication of one? Hard to tell with pictures

 

I haven't grasped the ring/ping test yet..and now I want to find out what an "Ice test" is..

 

I'm told that silver being very conductive will melt ice faster than any other coin. The test is to place the room temperature silver coin on a ice cube and watch it melt very quickly. I have never tried it. But, for the past several hours I have been out in the fields mowing. I think I'll give myself the ice test.