1901-S 25c - Another quiz

@justafarmer I am currently working on an article for BCCS on a third obverse type. The absence of the W crossbar was the subject of an article by Charles Rose in the Spring 2021 journal, as a marker to also distinguish Obverse 1 from Obverse 2. So you're not the only one to have noticed this, but as far as I know it was never published until that article. The "no crossbar" W version was exclusively used for 1901-1916, but there was also a short-lived transition hub used during 1900 that makes a third type!

Familiarity with these subtle changes can be useful in counterfeit detection. For example, on every 1895-O 10c "is this a counterfeit?" thread I've seen, the coin has the wrong reverse type, and often the wrong obverse as well. Trade dollars get busted for the same thing, which is something I wouldn't have a clue about and would never have noticed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thank-you for the info.

 

Well, not to change the subject-matter but we need a temp diversion for a moment and had to smile when I read this: While I indeed find it all very interesting and educational about the Barber qtr, this punctuation ditty mentioned is my only "claim to fame" with knowing any of it...about the "period" belonging inside quotation marks (or quote marks outside of a period punctuation) at the end of a sentence, because few if any, even with/in education, recognize nor care about such anymore and therefore few if any are expected to know about it, no longer teach it to any absolute degree, et al. It's a sad testimony to what's happening in our schools...indeed our culture, society, country. BTW, it's been happening this way with many things...but especially with English spelling/punctuation in writing and journalism if you haven't noticed, and which is being written (wrong) into all sorts of various computer programs for everything nowadays.

 

I had constructed that paragraph a different way, and when I cut and re-pasted the quote, I neglected to move the period. I ignored that petty criticism and moved along, but I'll definitely pass everything through my 8th grade grammar teacher from now on.

 

It has a S mint mark. What did I win?

 

Glad this was posted; looks like a great research project, just the kind of topic I really enjoy. I have learned more about types of coins out of my expertise researching "suspect" ones. We continue to talk about how few get past the TPGs but for me the list just keeps growing...

 

Note to members: I'm not the grammar police. My posts often contain misspellings (I see one in this thread) and inaccurate usage. The point I made about the placement of quotation marks and confirmed by these posters is EXACTY what goes on in numismatics. Folks like me are either ignorant of hub changes or it does not matter to them. There is still plenty of research to be done in EVERY US COIN SERIES. Unfortunately, even after serious research is done such as the subject of this thread it often takes DECADES for the obvious new discoveries to be accepted universally and used. Trust me, I know.

 

Thanks for the post.

 

Date doesn't match the 2 known obverses of 1901-S; matches closer 1901-P...




I sent a note to my contact at the TPG.

 

Thanks for following up. Yes a 1901-P date is really close to the 1901-S Obv B position but not quite. Will be interesting to see if you can track down the current owner.

 

Pretty ironic- the latest RCMR has a note starting on page 150 about another "put together coin" called a "sandwich fake" in the article. 1901-S, it has the wrong obverse but the correct type III reverse...

 

It's funny that they picked this one out of the lineup but completely missed the one with the wrong reverse type. The edges of both coins could tell us a lot I think. Thanks for following up.

 

I asked for edge information but received no response.

 

What do they do with these? Return them to the owner? It's interesting how the RCMR article you sent me focuses on the date placement as the key to debunking that fake but says nothing about checking the "third side."

The experts at BCCS brought up an interesting point for my subject coin. The shape of the mint mark on that one, combined with the Reverse 2 type, narrows down the reverse used for the sandwich to 1898-1900 S. Prior to 1898 the MM was more squared off.

 

I am not sure I understand. It's a sandwich fake. Both the obverse and reverse are correct and both are wrong. Looking at each side of the coin independent of the other each are correct. It is the pairing that is wrong. So which ever side of the coin one decides or chooses is correct makes the other side wrong.

 

@justafarmer I get what you're saying but for it to be a "1901-S", both sides of the coin have to be correct. But yes, the obverse is "correct" for one of the other 1901 coins, and the reverse is "correct" for some unknown S quarter from another year. I think Jack is pointing out that for the second example they at least picked the correct reverse hub type for 1901.

 

My Coin Week summary just published; I thank @KBBPLL for the technical help of a series expert!

https://coinweek.com/us-coins/from-...henticated-counterfeit-1901-s-barber-quarter/

 

The PCGS on-line cert has been removed.

 

Indeed it has. Good work Jack. Took them a month and a half, but I guess that's not so bad.

 

@KBBPLL , what do you think about this one? Reverse is correct type but the mm doesn't appear to match either known die pair: