Convince me that this is a fake...

For obvious reasons, it must be a fake, but I can't figure out how. It's not a glue down which is what I was expecting when I bought it. The words read correctly/not backwards. The text is upraised, not indented. The weight is correct. What am I missing?

1941 quarter - 6.2 grams

Multiple strikes... 4 strikes that I can count...possibly 3 different yrs/denominations which seems impossible.

The words Five cents is viewable as is the year 1951 or 1957 on the obverse. Looks like 1961 on the reverse?

Please convince me that this is a fake and that I should not waste my money my sending it in for further evaluation. Let me know if you want a specific photo angle taken.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

could it be several quarters set one atop another and then pressed upon with a commercial press of some kind? Just an idea?

 

It's not fake in that those are real coins damaged post mint very creatively.

Blow torch and/or vice etc.

In my opinion.

 

Sorry Juan, but they aren't just quarters..multiple denominations. If they were atop one another, the letters would be reversed as well which isn't the case with this coin.

Can you explain your thoughts more Raymond? The weight is consistent with 1 silver quarter, not multiple. Also, I've examined it pretty thoroughly...not a glue down example.

 

It's a silver quarter that someone later abused by pressing a nickel (or other denominations) against. The coin is real, the alteration was privately done well after it left the US Mint. It is worth its silver value.

 

Why wouldn't the letters be reversed if that's the case? Hold a coin over another coin, you'll see what I mean. That isn't the situation with this coin. Odds are that is has to be fake, but so far I can't come up with a logical reason that it is, even though I know it must be. Does that make sense?

 

I understand and I wrote my first post without thinking of those facts. It looks as though someone made a cast of real coins so that their details were incuse and backwards (like a wax mold) and then used that cast to press against a real coin that may have been heated prior to make it accept the raised imprint. Just a guess as to how it was done.

 

But wouldn't they want to benefit financially from that effort/expense? What would they have to gain...what's the motive if it's not financial?

Keep in mind the weight issue.. Based on the grams, they couldn't have even added extra metal. How would a mold accomplish this? And again, what's the motive in doing it if you don't make $ from it?

 

Not all the time. Lots of weird things are done to coins in metal shops or chemistry labs and the folks who do these things are oftentimes interested more in just doing something different than in making money.

 

Good point about motivations and a valid one. Still though, I have doubts that someone could create a mold to go on top of a genuine silver quarter that wouldn't affect weight and would still look convincing. It also seems like it would be a heck of a lot of trouble. Plus, I've seen metal on metal...it doesn't look like this.

 

At this period in history the United States was coming out of a depression. Mint workers were caught on several occasions making error or double died cents. In most cases they were caught by the Secret Service either with the cent or after it had been sold. This may be one of those unique situations where the cent got loose into circulation.

 

What Tom means is that a mold was used as a "die" to press a raised image into the coin. It neither adds or subtracts metal from the host coin.

 

Yes Jloring and I agree, but it would add to the weight of the coin..not the case here based on grams.

 

minerman.. Let's go with that for a moment. If that's the case, what happens to this coin?

 

could have been split open and then someone struck/pressed other coins into it on both sides. Then put it back together. Kind of complex, but what does the edge look like, and have you looked to see that the other images kind of match for where they are on obverse and reverse. Doesn't seem like it is done so evenly that it would have happened in a press at the mint by any means.

 

Let me know if there are other angles that would help. More than willing to provide additional pics.

 

Also, pics showing the entire coin (not zoomed in too far) and a pic comparing size to regular quarter would be helpful.

 

Will post pics of the rim.. Just give me a moment.

 

Here's a pic of something: A quarter (actually two for illustration purposes) next to each other if you flipped it over to see the correct side (for coin alignment) Then below each is where the nickel (1961) would be as seen on your coin --- again using coin alignment. Below that is where the nickel should be for coin alignment I believe. So someone who did this did pay attention to the placement angle in relationship of the nickel to the quarter, but did not pay attention to the alignment, and did medal alignment ---- I believe.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.... So if it was pressed in a press at the mint, which of course it wasn't then the person handling the press would also have to have the nickel out of alignment by 180 degrees.

 

A quarter-sized planchet cannot fit into the nickel striking chamber because it is too large. I believe it is a coin altered outside the mint.
Keep up the hunt!