I asked about this on CFe (eBay) but there's no general agreement. SO: Does anyone know if the 1853 three cent piece has been counterfeited? I ask because the one I just got seems to be 0.09gm light and about .9mm thin. It doesen't seem to be heavily worn. Measurements are: 14.04mm x 0.63mm 0.71gm The information I have is that the measurements should be 14mm x 1.55mm 0.8gm I have a long blade type caliper. Rotating the coin, the thickest measure I can get is 0.65mm - I believe I'm measuring the rim but there may be devices poking up somewhere. The reverse (?) (with the III) is well tarnished but the other side has brightness (original luster, I believe), the shield has well defined lines within it, and the points of the star still seem to have high spines (?) ribs (?)... whatever. The price is right for a Fine coin and (if real) the coin may actually grade a little bit higher than that. (???) (??)perhaps the coin had higher rims which wore down in circulation leaving the centre in good shape but the overall thickness less than expected.(??) Trying to make it come out right, here.
I am not aware of counterfeits existing for 1853 3 Cent Silver but there could certainly be some. Nothing jumps out me telling me your coin is a counterfeit. I'm not sure what the Mint tolerances were for this coin but your coin (if your scale is accurate) is over 10% less than the specified weight. I would think this is not within Mint tolerances. Sometimes you can blame a light coin on heavy wear but your coin is not heavily worn. If your coin is a contemporary counterfeit it is a very good one. I don't think it was not struck with hand-cut dies. (See another thread with 3 counterfeit 3 Cent Silvers struck from hand-cut dies. These were dated 1860 and 1861.)
Yeah, the wear on the rims might be the case. Still, I don't see how it would be 1.55 mm. That's more than 1/8 of a cm thick, which would be a much thicker coin. That might the elevated rim, or something, but it sounds off. I doubt it's a fake though, it's not a rare coin or a 'key date', those are the ones typically faked.
Should be .802 grams +/- .032 grams weight, 14.3mm dia. Breen encyclopedia says that over 60 die pairs made 11,400,000 coins between Jan 12 and March 31. If your instuments are not off, then the short time for the ammount of coins minted and high die numbers could account for your variations. There were some striking problems with type 1 and 2 as well. Looks real to me. Star points point to the right areas on the coin, and you can see the lines in the shield from the obv on the rev between the III. Could also be due to some cleaning as evidenced by the pitting on bottom of shield and left of the date. I'm also curious as to what the blotch is over the second I on the rev. Repaired hole or just splotching? Hope this helps.
What got me started wondering about this coin is its thickness. It does seem that 1.55mm is a lot for such a tiny coin but that's the only information I have found. If that IS correct then it's less than half the thickness it should be. In addition, it SEEMS (can't be sure) that it may be a bit heavy for its size - more silver? - flan error?? I've noticed a plumpness in the letters but, I suppose, that could be die wear. ?? After posting this coin I discovered the coins in the counterfeit thread. Though they can't be compared directly, there seems to be a world of (obvious) difference between my coin and these known counterfeits. With those as a base point, I would have to say that mine does appear to be legit. OH, the blotch over the second I is just that, a blotch not a repair. If the coin is real, am I looking at an EF (XF) grade? That's what my (old) Red Book says according to its description of grade. I bought it as if it were Fine and for a price that was not bad for that grade($40). If it could be EF then I've "made out like a bandit!"
Here's what a good one looks like. There are a few things that look kind of funky but most are the same on yours and the known good one - the bottom of the shield doesn't point directly to the bottom point of the star, the top of the shield seems shifted a little to the right, the circle above the diamond in the C is misshapen, etc. Yours has a little hook in the bottom loop of the three in the date but I can't tell if that is duplicated in the good one; it could just be damage. The only thing that looks strange to me is the spacing between the top serifs on the adjacent I's in the III; yours look angled, the good ones look parallel. Also, if you count the horizontal lines in the shield, there should be eight, with the top one just seen as short lines in the loops of the scrollwork. Yours doesn't seem to have that eighth line in the left scroll loop, but that loop on yours seems damaged so the line might be obliterated.
Nice analysis. Thank you. I'll add that to the growing body of insights from which, hopefully, I may figure out just what I have here. 60+ die pairs doesn't make the analysis any easier. <SIGH> Thanks again.
I took another look and found something else that doesn't add up. In the lower half of the shield, there are six vertical bands, each made up of a pair of lines. On yours, the lower point of the star is in line with the left side of the fourth band. On the good one pictured, the point is centered on the space between the third and fourth band. It's a small difference but you can see it if you line up a straightedge with the bands. This could be a die difference, or my imagination.
