A "super fake" 1884-S Morgan$?

Interesting article in Coin Week from NGC and their discovery of what they are now terming a "super fake" 1884-S Morgan$.

The 1st images are from the article ( at https://coinweek.com/counterfeits/counterfeit-coin-detection-a-morgan-dollar-super-fake-revealed/).





The obverse is attributed as VAM 7 but for the 1884-CC! One of the main identifiers is the "gouge" on the cheek.

The comparison image shows the NGC "1884-S" on the left, the 1884-CC obverse from the VAM World site on the right.



Any Morgan experts out there willing to share their thoughts?

Best, Jack.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm not a Morgan expert, but that pitting on the rim beneath the 3rd star set off a red flag for me. I don't see it mentioned in the article.

 

I suppose the alloy is correct?

Probably just the pictures, the fake looks like .999...

I hate it that stuff like this is making the hobby more difficult. But thanks for keeping us informed.

 

This is one of the great benefits of being a VAMer. Nearly every Dollar coin I buy, I will attempt to identify it's particular VAM. A counterfeit will eventually be revealed, as there are very few if any new VAM's discovered on high end coins like this. So if the die diagnostics does not match, don't buy it.

 

Playing devil's advocate here but whose to say that an underutilized obverse die was not transferred from one branch mint to another. I guess in the long run it really doesn't matter whether this is actually a legitimate die pairing or not. It has been determined a counterfeit and from this point forward recognized as such by the coin collecting community.

This is not statement concerning the specific die paring in the OP. But more of a general observation of my own. In order to protect the hobby from the super fakes a small number of legitimate die pairings going to be incorrectly attributed as counterfeit and lost to the coin collector forever.

 

It might be the photo, but the “frosty luster” on the fake looks off. It’s more obvious when the fake and the real items are side by side. I have never seen a genuine Morgan Dollar that had original luster the looked like that.

 

This. I'm at the same point collecting Morgan Dollars. It's rare for me to purchase one without knowing the VAM nowadays. The mint mark location on this super fake does not match any known reverse die for 1884-s. Anyone who collects Morgan Dollars by variety (VAM) would easily detect this coin is a counterfeit. The rest of the collecting community could very well be fooled.

 

I agree with you justafarmer- I was hoping some experienced Morgan collectors here would sound in! In my thoughts though the obverse die shows some pretty extensive cracks paired to the CC reverse and I am not sure a worn die like that would be sent to San Fransisco for later use, but I am not a student of the series.

In my research approach I am looking for another one, dumpster diving eBay archives, etc but no luck so far.

This would be similar to my counterfeit 1872-S half dollar if proven- an almost unique "pairing" of an 1872 Philly obverse and an 1875-S reverse (edge reed count from an 1876!).

 

Appreciate the response Dave! Again like my 1872-S liberty seated half I imaged above, wrong reverse and date.

Can you attribute the Morgan reverse date from the image posted?

 

With some searching possibly. It is a set left and tilted left which is not very common to my knowledge.

 

LDS examples from CC mint production does not rule out initial coin production from the die originating at the San Francisco mint and shipped from there to CC. Need Die State Examples earlier than to OP S example from CC. Do we not?

 

I took a few minutes and looked back through Heritage auction archives from now to the start of 2019 for examples graded 55-65 and did not see any that matched the coin in the OP.

 

I went back to 2007 there ksparrow and found none either; 2007 is as far back as I have traced back other recent counterfeits I have researched.

 

Agree justafarmer, just can't find any evidence of that so far. I am looking for earlier die states of the 1884-CC VAM 7 1st. I did run across the so-called best example listed on PCGS's site sold by Heritage and show the obverse here. The odd thing is the cert appears not to be active when looked up on PCGS's cert look-up.

 

Indeed, it says “invalid cert number”. Either it was crossed-over to NGC or considered counterfeit...? Do you have a contact at PCGS who could check?

 

It's possible the counterfeiter chose the VAM-7A obverse because of the extensive die crack in an attempt to add credibility. The die cracks on the super fake are amplified compared to the LDS VAM-7A to the point of appearing to be die breaks.
I'll bet if measured on a coordinate measuring machine all the details of the fake would be large by several thousandths.

 

I wonder how many Chinese are members of this and other coin forums and eagerly await the critiques of their products?

 

Sadly pointing out what the counterfeiters are doing wrong helps them get it right the next time. The trouble is if you don't point out the problems, collectors have no way to spot them. It's a double edged sword.

 

There is always a balancing act between informing the Coin Collecting Public and the counterfeiters. I do not divulge some of the more detailed information about the counterfeits either in this forum or my published articles on the subject...

 

very true, my 1884 cc is a Vam 7a