An Interesting not-PCGS 1893-O Morgan Dollar

A friend asked me if I was interested in reviewing this 1893-O Morgan. He stated he had purchased it and sent it to PCGS for grading, but it came back body-bagged as counterfeit!


Owner’s images

Images weren’t great but it appeared it might be the wrong reverse for the date and mint. He offered to send it to me for an in-hand review, and I was happy to accept.

When received I spent part of my day off morning reviewing it. Weight came in at 27.0 g and it tested silver on a Sigma.



But it appears to have the wrong reverse for the date and mint; '93-O's are C3's with the wing gap and berry shown in the following image. This one is a C4; I understand the transition to C4 didn't happen until 1901 for the New Orleans mint.



There are 2 reverses for the genuine VAMs, the "O" on this one doesn't match either; both position, shape and tilt are wrong.



And there are a number of odd-looking issues including the “D” and the "3" in the date.





Interestingly the reverse of the coin in hand does NOT appear to match the selling forum images from the owner...

Best, Jack.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

So? Is it something special or a counterfeit?

 

Definitely a counterfeit. Looks like the images from the original seller were for a different (fake) received...

 

I'll take credit for contributing this to your Hall of Shame Morgan dollars. I'm honored to have such an esteemed member of the numismatic integrity community taking the time to examine and put out a caveat emptor public service message. Thank you Jack!

 

Glad you showed that even some counterfeits have real silver as their base metal, sneaky counterfeiters for sure! Thx Jack!

 

Would you ever take the job at Ebay, and get their algorithm, AI in check. I do think it would cost them a good half a mil a year, and personally, I think you would be more than worth the money.

 

I recall several years ago some Morgans being sold on the Chinese site for around $80, claiming to be silver. Because they were so much more expensive than the usual $2 fakes, I thought it was possible that they really were silver, but who knows. The first 1893-O that came up there just now also has the 1901 reverse.

 

So the seller has 12 negative reviews mostly talking about getting a different and counterfeit coin from the listing images.

This 1895-O received looks like it is the same reverse as this 1893-O with the damaged "D":

 

I never noticed the mint mark is tilting differently on the 93O from their photo and the actual coin sold until you put them side by side. Just to clarify, you are saying the image in the listing ad is different than the actual product sold? If that is true, the seller is knowingly passing counterfeit coins.

 

Oooh, the old "I sent you a good item, but you returned a fake". I wonder how far this seller will get with it.

Funny how some sellers seem to get all these fraudulent buyers, while other sellers seem to have no problems...

 

The part how it was "previously in a graded TPG slab as uncirculated" made me chuckle too. Never give up the con!

 

Yes, just like the 1895-O the seller used different images for the listing; both yours and the 1895-O use a common bad reverse I had not seen before...

 

Got to give him some street cred. Nothing quite like a con man who is also pious and arrogant. What's amazing is how many items he has sold. Discovery Channel should hire him and give him his own Fraud Stars show.

 

Check this one out. I briefly considered filling a hole in my collection with this one. Nope. Does this one scan for those with smart phones? PCGS verify checks out with the coin in this grade. However there is no photo at their site for it. I don't see the PCGS hologram on the front of the slab though. Maybe it it just a poor photo and angle. Sure looks real to me but.......
It just sold to someone.

 

With this one I look more to seeing the PCGS at the bottom right of the slab, The one above with the QR code is Gen 6.0
There was also a Gen 6.0S It had the gold shield on the label. Both Gen 6 slabs were blank in the bottom left. Gen 6.1 used both styles of Gen 6 except they had a slightly different font on the label and they got rid of the QR code and added the embossed NFC at the bottom left, it was also added it to the reverse label.



I think the coin and the slab look OK.

 

I think the coin looks legit. But if I'm spending that kind of money, I'm making sure. Maybe I don't understand what you just posted but I don't see the hologram, posting what I mean. I don't see it. Maybe I'm just retarded but I'm confused. lol

 

You are right. I thought I saw it. A bad photo can and will obliterate details. I thought I saw a slight bit of the design.