Markers for die-struck counterfeit 1917 T1 SLQ?

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by -jeffB, Aug 16, 2012.

  1. -jeffB

    -jeffB Greshams LEO Supporter

    So, I bought this SLQ that was listed as having "issues on either side of Liberty", thinking that it looked pretty good for its price -- even details coins with AU or uncirculated details tend to run high.

    It does definitely have issues. There are hairlines on the obverse high points, some significant scratches (especially on the shield), and it looks like somebody might have whizzed the panels on either side of liberty -- it looks like they're solid hairlines. On the other hand, it's got a nice gold tone, and lots of luster in the fields and on the devices. Other than the scratches and hairlines, I don't see any actual wear or luster breaks -- although I'm not especially confident in my ability to discern either.

    The thing that concerns me, though, is a dig on the exposed breast. I can almost convince myself that there's luster inside it, a hallmark of die-struck forgeries.

    I've found mentions of die-struck counterfeit 1917 Type 1 quarters, but I can't seem to find any images, or even references to images. Does anybody out there have more info?

    Here are the coin's obverse, reverse, and a close-up of the dig. I'm leaning toward the coin being legit, AU58 details at worst, and most likely uncirculated details. But I could sure use some expert opinions -- thanks in advance!

    IMG_3326-800x800-med.jpg

    IMG_3327-800x800-med.jpg

    IMG_3338-pit-closeup.jpg
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Tom B

    Tom B TomB Everywhere Else

    Looks like a real AU that has been cleaned and might have been struck through something to cause the divot.
     
  4. Ripley

    Ripley Senior Member

    Well, send it to NGC for a grade. It would let you rest easy. :smile
     
  5. -jeffB

    -jeffB Greshams LEO Supporter

    Heh. Maybe ANACS during a 10-for-$100 special, but probably not even that.

    I guess someone might have tried cleaning it with something sandy, but they didn't get into the fields. It almost looks more like it just got pushed across a rough surface a few times. It's pretty enough for my taste, at least when I'm not using a macro lens.
     
  6. jloring

    jloring Senior Citizen

    I agree... I really like the look of this coin. Good closeups reveal defects that are hard to see, even with a 10X loupe. I would say genuine without a doubt.
     
  7. -jeffB

    -jeffB Greshams LEO Supporter

    It's good to get some concurring opinions, I'll admit. I was just wondering if there's a well-documented set of characteristics for the counterfeit I mentioned above.

    I was nervous because I landed this for $78 shipped, and it looked much better than I expected in-hand, tripping my "too good to be true" detector. But after examining the close-ups more carefully, I'm thinking that this was a fair-to-good price for a legitimate coin with some definite issues.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page