Nope. The light is coming from two different directions. The valleys you point out are more pronounced in the one lighting condition over the other. Once you account for that, you will see the two are actually the same
Each photo, to include the earlier ones, shows that portion as being sunken vs raised. I challenge you to a photo of an ASE in this same manner to make only one specific area look sunken in.
@TypeCoin971793 based on confusion on Facebook, I feel inclined to say that the split images are of two different coins. The left coin is the coin in question, the right coin is a photo of a coin from PCGS' coinfacts.
The thumb is well formed on the left and isn't on the right ... go figure ... I don't like those odd wear mark spots. I'd stay away from it just because it's ugly looking. lol
So it's not actually listed as for sale, but someone has posted photos of a lot of coins I believe to be counterfeit. I think this is a better counterfeit. Here are some others from the same person.
I know zippo about mexican coins. That US gold $1 obviously was in a pendant whether fake or not I don't know.
the 1854 gold dollar is genuine. The 1931 Panama is a Chinese fake. I cannot tell for the rest of them because the owner is incompetent at taking pics.
Then you are not interpreting the photos correctly. That should be obvious to everyone. But apparently not.
incompetent photos helps mask fakes whether intentional or not ... If I get a chance, and remember I'll pull out some of my 2011 ASEs for comparisons with the OPs original question.
In red are low areas that correspond to the blue areas. For the deep divots, I and not ready to discount the possibility that they are simply just hits. The reverse is pristine, while the obverse is not. That makes me wonder if it was installed in a piece of jewelry or something. Send me a pic of the edge of a known genuine piece (I have no ASEs with me because I don’t stack silver), and I will see if the suspect coin has a proper thickness. If the thickness is correct, then the coin is genuine. If not, then it is fake. From the poor pics, that’s the only sure way to tell since the weight is correct.
I’ve bought many genuine coins from incompetent photos. I don’t assume anything. please get an edge shot like the first pic in post #17
I couldn't tell about the gold dollar, but gold isn't my forte. The Panama was an obvious fake, but the owner swore up and down that it's real and I'm mistaken.
Even with all these efforts, which were pretty close to the original (well done @Clawcoins ), the parts that are sunken on the coin in question appear raised in these photos. Naturally, of course @TypeCoin971793 the ONLY possible solution is that I'm not interpreting the photos correctly.
Thank you @Clawcoins ! That was exactly what we needed! Side-by-side edge shots: It appears that the thickness is appropriate. You said the areas in blue appear to be sunken and you believe from the CoinFacts photo that they are supposed to be raised. Let’s analyze this photo. We know that the letters are raised on the surface. Since the bottoms are lit, we know that the coin is being lit from the bottom. This is substantiated by the reflections on the edges of the sun’s rays and the fields. Now lets look at the areas in question. If they are supposed to be raised, then we should expect to see a shadow on the far side with the near side being lit. However, we see the opposite, meaning that the areas are sunken with respect to the immediate surrounding areas. So yes, the only explanation is that you were not interpreting the pictures correctly. There could also be some PMD on the suspect coin.
The left coin is a genuine Morgan Dollar. The right one is a base metal counterfeit with added thickness to get the correct weight. The difference is quite noticeable. Keep in mind we are talking about ASEs here, which are purer than 90% Morgans, so the % increase in thickness would be much higher if it was plated base metal.