1855 $3 Princess Gold... real or fake and grade?

Were there any clear diagnostics? Yes. There were some minor tool marks. Omega's dies were VERY good but they were not perfect.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

They were very good for the time. Today they would just be average.

 

according to the handbook on counterfeit coins, this fits 100% of the diagnostics as an example of


COUNTERFEIT


Checked it myself... guaranteed FAKE for the date... $200 tuition, but well worth it. Could save me thousands in the future

 

Are you saying this 1855 $3 gold coin is counterfeit?

 

Yes, all the pictures that I have posted are of the same coin. The coin is counterfeit.

I picked it up from a guy in a non-coin environment (red flag #1), he only wanted $400 for it (red flag #2), details looked "mushy" upon brief inspection (red flag #3), seller was open to trade for another coin of lesser value (red flag #4)...However, these red flags weren't totally discouraging. I've been in the "game" long enough to know that it was gold, and I had my suspicions that it was fake, but I still wanted the coin.

So, I figured that the worst that I could do it pay his price and learn about the coin. Don't get me wrong, $200 is a considerable amount to potentially lose on the deal (paid minus melt), but in the long run, this "loss" will not matter to me... and that's the only important part... how I perceive the transaction.

That $200 was tuition. From what I learned and was able to share, $200 was a deal. Hands on experience beats anything from a book. Books are written by those who have experience, not by those that read other books. I'm not saying that I am writing a book, but I am saying that I can intelligently speak on the dynamics of this particular deal and relay that information to others with better understanding and insight than what any book can give.

So, some may say that I lost, but I look at this as a win for me. I hope those that followed this thread got something from it. My wins increase with every person that learned something by reading this thread.

 

If it's real gold and made to spec, there's almost $200 in gold in it.

 

I skipped the middle of the threads, but the first thing I noticed was the double image on the left of the final image. This could be from a loose die. If I could see evidence on the reverse, then it would be a double strike. This causes all kinds of problems when trying to authenticate it over the internet.

Go back and look in the field left of the nose and crown. Now I don't know if there is a counterfeit with that indicator, but it would make me hesitant to dismiss it as a fake too quickly. A double strike would also cause mushiness.

 

It looks to me like the "unknown grain" is grain sorghum, used as animal feed and to make molasses. Molasses was a popular sweetener in the South at the time this coin was designed.

 

That is very possible. We grew sorghum on the farm and I am familiar with it. Sorghum has a grain head at the top of the plant. Another possibility is millet.

 

I worked at an experimental farm one summer growing various varieties of corn and sorghum, so sorghum was the first thing that popped into my head. Millet does look very similar, but according to this web site it was not introduced into the US until 1875, so I would guess that sorghum would be more likely.

http://chetday.com/millet.html

 

That's interesting. I agree that the grain is probably sorghum.

 

and there are many people reading this thread who do not post..