Assume you didn't know this was an elecrtroype...

What would make this coin suspicious?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230706623872

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm still learning but the waxy shine bothers me and it looks like there would be a seam on the edge along with what appears to be air bubbles on the reverse

 

The fact that it looks like it's made from wet clay. Plus the folded-over edges are a giveaway. Those are just two things among many.
Guy

 

It says replica. A Large price to pay for a replica.

 

The wet clay comment is a good way to put it..

 

Nothing is aligned correctly either. The letters are way off the rim, touching design on reverse and like another member said, out of many.

 

Interesting piece from a historical standpoint, despite being a modern replica of an old process. Here's a brief summary of the "electrotype" method of forgery:

http://www.calgarycoin.com/reference/fakes/electro.htm

 

The "copy" stamped on the reverse.

 

looks like a piece of melting chocolate candy

 

The folded over edge would make me suspicious, especially on these high dollar coins.

 

This shows why I'm better at attribution and an easy mark for fakes. My first clue was that the reverse is not the reverse of 1804. Look under the D at an authentic 1804: Notice the leaf is right of the upright. Now look at the "Electrotype."

http://www.icollector.com/1804-S-266a-R4-F15_i8599551

http://www.icollector.com/images/1026/14916/14916_0529_2_lg.jpg

 

You are very precise, Marshall.

When I attribute CBH's I no longer start with star and dentil position or even letter placement. I go for the obvious. Like banner location relative to letters.

The obvious is easiest. The difficult takes precision.
Lance.

 

One of the first things I look for on an 1804 is the low berry and long nearly horizontal stem to the right of the E in ONE.


And I agree about the capped bust halves, I almost never use star and dentil positioning.

 

You guys really are very detailed. Not knowing these issues, like Doug said "everything". I always approach a coin the same way. After looking over easy things like edges, alignment, and the like, (all wrong on this coin of course), I look at wear. Wear is pretty easy to see why high points are worn and recessed points aren't. Even if all of the first points on this coin were correct, the overall softness on this coin would flag it easily. It could not be wear, and looking closer it would not be a soft strike nor worn dies, as both have different diagnostics, (soft strike being closest to this look). This "item" is a classic case study of die transfer detail loss, the seller admitting it came from a copy already, so at least 2 iterations of detail loss explaining lack of details overall.

After all of that, then if I were truly interested I could jump down to the level of die diagnostics, etc. which admittedly I would be nowhere near your guy's level. Although, throw out a Hepthalite bronze or a Sassanid silver drachm and I might have a leg up on you guys.

Anyway, that is how I approach that issue. Nice post for discussion.

Chris