Die-Struck Counterfeit 1894-S Morgan Dollar

At a coin show yesterday I picked up a few counterfeit coins to add to my collection including this VERY nice and VERY deceiving 1894-S Morgan Dollar (a key date). I collect and study counterfeit coins because I find this area of numismatics to be extremely interesting. I don't claim to be the foremost expert on counterfeit coins and some here may call me a "moron" but I think I have a very good understanding of the subject.

I don't know the origin of this fake but the dealer said he bought it as a genuine coin from a seller on eBay. (I didn't get the entire story but he said he was able to get reimbursed through PayPal. I guess the amount I paid him for the coin was pure profit.)

This coin is die-struck as opposed to being cast. It weighs 24.97 g, a good bit less than a genuine coin (26.73 g). This coin has GREAT cartwheel luster, something you just don't get with a cast coin.

It appears the planchet was brass or bronze and was plated with nickel or silver after being struck because the yellowish metal shows through in several places where the plating has worn off. With all the luster this coin has I question whether the plating was actually worn off. Could it be that the planchet was plated before being struck? Would that account for the plating being missing from the high points of the devices (where the metal moved the most)? Could the coin have cartwheel luster if it was plated after being struck? This coin has really gotten me to thinking about a lot of things I had never considered about counterfeit coins.

It also appears the dies were made from circulated coins because, while the coin - in general - has very sharp details, the details on the highest points of the devices appear worn (like on a circulated coin). I'm sure the counterfeiter polished his dies quite a bit because the fields are excellent (with a few exceptions).

The last two numerals of the date appear to have been altered. Can any of the Morgan Dollar experts here tell what date and mint the host coin(s) were for the obverse and reverse?

Below are photos of the obverse and reverse of this coin. I will post close-up photos of the coin in follow-up posts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

not authentic.

 

Below is a close-up photo of the date and lower portion of Liberty's neck. Note the numerous tool marks around the date. The '9' appears to be repunched and misshapen. The '4' also looks a bit odd to me. (Can any Morgan Dollar experts tell me if the shape of the '9' and '4' are correct?)

Also notice the raised blemish near the truncation of Liberty's neck. That is something you won't find on a genuine coin.

 

No $&!@, Sherlock. Did you believe that I think this coin is genuine?

 

Note the raised blobs in the field in front of Liberty's forehead and what appears to be evidence of a rusted die above Liberty, especially around the 'B' and 'U' of PLURIBUS.

Note also the yellowish metal showing through the plating on the high points of the devices.

 

Note how the coin has a circulated look because the high portions of the devices appear worn. But this coin has great cartwheel luster and does not appear to have circulated at all. My guess is the counterfeiter made his dies from a circulated coin(s).

 

Below are some close-ups of the reverse, starting with the mintmark. I see what appears to be a small die crack across the arrow feathers and across to the wreath. Any VAM experts recognize this reverse? Also, do the denticles look correct?

In the next close-up it appears the motto "In God We Trust" is a bit mushy and there is some chatter on the rim above 'STA' of STATES.

In the last photo you can see the coin has very good details but appears worn although the coin never circulated.

 

Roflmao

 

That is really cool. I agree with you that the dies were made with a circulated coin, I'd say the coin has high XF/low AU details. Obviously a coin with that much circulation would not have the same kind of luster yours does. I think that is a really interesting piece to add to any collection.

When I first opened the thread...I thought "counterfeit" was a figure of speech. :rolling:

 

Not many. Not me !

Great thread. Thanks, hobo. Educational. :thumb:

Your theories make sense to me. I'm interested in what the other big dogs add.

 

Jack,

Do you think his first clue was that I identified it as a counterfeit?!?! :mouth:

 

Thanks for the education.

I though I knew what to look for (with counterfeits) but this was really helpful by including pictures.

 

Thank you for all the good photographs & descriptions !!!! It's amazing that the manufacturer went through all the trouble of making counterfeit dies & didn't use a higher grade host coin.

#1 Do you think it comes from China, Thailand or someplace else?

#2 It would be nice to know who originally sold it on EBay.

Very best regards,
collect89

 

Actually, I was quite suprised at how well they counterfeited the denticles. Those are probably the best ones I've seen on any fake. Really scarry how good these are getting!
Guy~

 

I can't add much about this coin, but I think die struck counterfiet coins are fascinating. Details like nicks with mint luster in them are interesting tell-tales.
Also the fact that this coin was modeled on a circulated coin is interesting. Had the coin been made from solid silver and pocketed for a while it would have been harder to identify I think.

great thread Hobo. :thumb:

 

If I came across a coin like that made of silver and the right weight it would be in my morgan collection.

 

I dont dislike hobo, but if you dont appreciate my help, why post?

 

Sorry if I was rude but it struck me as very odd that you would proclaim this coin as "not authentic" when the title of this thread is "Die-Struck Counterfeit 1894-S Morgan Dollar" and, in my initial post, I used the words counterfeit, fake and counterfeiter no less than 6 times. Your post was a classic example of stating the obvious. I don't mean to offend you but I thought your post added nothing to the thread. Perhaps your post was meant as a joke and if I was I would suggest that in the future you include a smiley face or something to indicate it as such.

 

It wasn't meant as a joke at all, and I'm not offended.

 

Cool. We're all here to learn and sometimes teach. Your constructive comments are always welcome, as, I hope, are mine.