1884-s BU Morgan "Super-Fake"

Well these same "experts" created an 1872-S half dollar by combining a copied 1872 Phiadelphia obv die with an S mint reverse that had a mintmark style that wasn't used until 1875. (And those got into the TPG slabs) They may be experts at making the dies but they DON'T know varieties.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

All the more reason I lean towards NGC having prior knowledge the coin was fake before examining it.

Although not an ordinary occurrence - is it beyond possible that Carson City forwarded excess obverse dies to San Francisco or vice versa?

Seems to me NCG could face significant liability validating an authentic coin as counterfeit. Especially a coin with the potential value of the example provided in the article.

 

That's a little hopeful, that they don't know "varieties." This is a big gash on the side of the eye. It's not just the hairline cracks. I'll bet Daniel Carr can give us some insights into the requisite knowledge and skill.

 

We're always going to be reactive, not proactive, in dealing with counterfeits. It's my feeling that the overriding priority is educating collectors, to better-equip them to deal with the problem in their own transactions. Yes, the bad guys will learn from their mistakes, and it's quite likely that the day will come when we're seeing near-perfection in their work. That will be a bad day.

But it's fatuous to believe they're not intelligent or creative enough to reach that point on their own merits, that they're not watching closely what's happening and learning, and equally fatuous to think it a good line of attack to sweep the whole thing under the rug.

Educate.

 

interesting

 

@Fuzzybub, you have an interesting way of filling up my alerts folder.

 

PART #2

Part#1 is posted below as somehow a large part of this post was deleted. I'll need to add it again.

eddiespin, asked: "Why then did they pick the CC with the die gouge when there were others they could have "patterned" off of that could have tricked us? Why did they pick the one with the red flag? It's not like that was their only choice. These were professionals, remember. That's their profile, if this is a counterfeit."

These crooks are master fabricators. They are not numismatists. In the 1970's, an instructor told his authentication class that if he and his boss went over to Lebanon, they could help make fake gold that would be undetected in the U.S. by eliminating all the defects found on the fakes! True story.

justafarmer, posted: "This coin was classified as counterfeit because it exhibited an undocumented die gouge?"

There is no easy way to say this. The coin is a counterfeit because it was not made by the US Mint. The die gouge is a "cute" way of developing a story about how it was detected and why."

"Are we to assume that all 1884-S Morgan die pairings and die states have been discovered, mapped and cataloged?"

YES! At least somewhere but probably at all the major TPGS also.

"Surely the coin was rejected as genuine due to other undisclosed facts and reporting of the die gouge was for the purpose of informing the public of the counterfeit and its characteristics."

Yes, Very true.

justafarmer, posted: "All I am suggesting is NGC may have had prior knowledge the coin was counterfeit before examining it. Which would allow them to examine this coin for a different purpose and from a different perspective."

IMO, this is the kind of conjecture that muddies a thread. No one should care about the "what-ifs." What if a CC die was sent to SF? What if the coin is actually authentic? What if this thread would have ended at post #22 and I would be doing other things?

Conder101, posted: "Yes they are professionals, professional counterfeiters not numismatists. All they knew was they wanted an 1884 dated silver dollar to use for the pattern to create the obv die and they selected an 1884 CC dollar for the "model". They aren't VAMmers so they didn't realize the die gouge would flag it. To them one 1884 dated coin was as good as any other."

Very well said!

eddiespin, post: "Throw it off on the individuals who had the resources, the knowledge, and the skill to counterfeit this coin were ignorant in their choice of the die. How believable is that?"

That's what happened. The coin is the proof. One OTHER THING is sure. The maker will be more careful next time.

eddiespin, posted: "How exactly are you surmising they did this? Are you saying they stole the die , or that they somehow recreated it from a coin? Or it's an altered mint mark? Now that I look closer at it, the S does look somewhat cockeyed."

Please !

justafarmer, posted: "All the more reason I lean towards NGC having prior knowledge the coin was fake before examining it."

Ditto!

 

Part #1

Thanks for posting this link. I did not bother to comment in the past because I thought by the time anyone read Post#22 the thread would be "Answered" as they do on another site. As it happens, the usual conjecture and "what-ifs" kept it going. So I'll add my 2c.

SuperDave, posted: "How could it be a "Super-Fake" if it won't pass a cursory examination from anyone familiar with varieties of the series in question?"

This member has me on "Ignore." He may wish to read this. After that, I hope to be placed back on "Ignore."

The reason this is classified as a "Super Fake" is that it is a state-of-the-art counterfeit! That means that it would defy detection by all but about .03% of the dealers/collectors who saw it if was a common date and not an 1884-S! This can easily be proven by examples of deceptive counterfeit dollars from our past (that defied detection) that are considered very crude when compared to what is being made today.

Furthermore, 98% of collectors and dealers have no idea of Morgan dollar VAMS except for a very few of the popular ones. Oh, lookie here. I found a 1922 Peace dollar with an unlisted die break. I think I'll send my "Discovery Coin" in and get it published as 1922 VAM-4672! I don't really feel that way but I need to give Dave another reason to continue my reputation as a and Keep me on "Ignore." I also want to get @Cascade stirred up a little this morning.

HawkeEye, posted: "I did not see in the article if it was made from something magnetic or did they actually use silver? ...But this one looked like they made a high quality die."

Super Fakes are within tolerance as far as alloy, weight, and size. They are die struck and not magnetic. You are correct. A high-quality, counterfeit die was used to make this piece.

Cascade, posted: "If it's the correct weight and dimensions it has to be either silver or tungsten (?) I believe. It is strange that they don't mention that though."

No need to, NCG figured it should be obvious.

eddiespin, posted: "I think this whole article is a little goofy. For instance, were this counterfeit, obviously these were no amateurs who did it. This article would have us believe they overlooked an obvious die gouge right smack in the center of the profile that any fool collector or not couldn't overlook. That doesn't seem to make sense. Why isn't this from another die? There were 3.2 million of these minted."

There sure is something "goofy" going on here. The people who made this coin are professional "fabricators" not professional numismatists. They made a Super Fake, yet blundered very obviously in its execution causing many here to believe they are expert authenticators.

Three things are apparent to me from this coin:
1. There may be other less valuable deceptive fakes from this source in the market.
2. They will be more careful the next time.
3. They believed that their method of producing this next generation of fakes was so good that they tried for the big $$$$ score and used a rare date knowing that it would eventually be scrutinized carefully.

messydesk, posted: "What is unclear from the article is whether this is a struck counterfeit or a sandwich coin alteration made from a genuine 84-CC VAM 7 obverse and a genuine S-mint reverse (probably 79-82). I really hope this is a sandwich coin. There is a rim defect on the obverse at 8:00 and a smaller one on the reverse at 5:00."

If this were simply an added "S" or "sandwich" there would never have been a press release. Crude junk like that is saved for the average to below average collector in their Numismatist column.

messydesk, posted: "...it's still unclear to me whether the 84-CC VAM 7 was used as a pattern for a die."

That is the case. IMO, anyone familiar with Morgan dollars should have known instantly that they had seen this obverse die (with the die marker) before. A real specialist such as yourself would have known instantly that the coin was an 84-CC! Then, when he turned it over... New Super Fake!

 

I believe this coin was made using some sort of physical transfer from genuine coins to false dies. In that regard, it is the same as numerous other counterfeits produced during the last 60 years or so.

It is pretty obvious that a genuine 1884-CC VAM-7 was used as a model for the obverse. The luster on the coin looks wrong as does the frost on the center of the obverse. So I do not believe that it was a "sandwich" job made from two genuine coins. Also, a genuine 1884-CC with that clean of a cheek would probably be worth too much to cut in half (unless the reverse was badly damaged).

The replication of the die gouge from the 1884-CC shows a very high resolution transfer. Any bag marks on the model coin would transfer at the same resolution. That would be the key to identifying such counterfeits (in addition to the odd luster).

 

This is a very very well done counterfeit that almost fooled me. I had to look at it 2 times. If you are very good at VAMs thought it is pretty easy to spot

 

It's only a Super-Fake if it fools Super-Dave

 

Insider posted “IMO, this is the kind of conjecture that muddies a thread. No one should care about the "what-ifs." What if a CC die was sent to SF? What if the coin is actually authentic? What if this thread would have ended at post #22 and I would be doing other things?”

Those were not what ifs – they are a list of reasons leading me to believe NGC may have had prior knowledge the coin was counterfeit before examining it. Meaning NGC may not have been burdened with the responsibility of making a determination as to authenticity of the coin and absent of that constraint enabled examination for the sole purpose of identifying and cataloging the unique characteristics of this specific counterfeit.

 

What? I don't do well with convoluted explanations; but I think I get your meaning.

You must be correct. Why burden NGC with making a decision on this coin. They only do it a thousand times a day. Lucky, they didn't need to overtax themselves on this one. The submitter told them it was bad.

See, I agree with you! Someone knew the coin was c/f and sent it in for them to see and publish. Then after confirming the coin was a fake, they could rule out the chance that CC sent an obverse die to SF.

Here's something else we all should consider...maybe the coin is actually genuine.

Know what would be very helpful and educational. Do your "mapping thing" and tell us what CC reverse was used to make the fake. Think of that! An Anatomy of a Counterfeit article. Then send it into the Numismatist. IMO, you are wasting your talents here.

 

Did you mean to say what S reverse?

 

I SURE DID! But I was really serious about @justafarmer and his mapping talents. It would be a sensational numismatic story. It's too bad the folks at NGC didn't give it a try.

Too bad the rest of us with some time on our hands can never find that reverse without having the actual coin to look for any obvious markers.

 

This coin - if real - has a six-figure value. It's reasonable to assume a TPG is going to perform comprehensive due diligence before committing themselves to creating that kind of value. I would tend to agree that NGC had prior information on the coin, but I would hope they'd have found it on their own before blindly certifying a $150,000 coin.

The mark on the cheek is the kind of feature any VAMmer would assume is already recorded for the date, most especially 1884-S. A modicum of research using publicly-available data would explain that mark and why it couldn't possibly be authentic (in simultaneous use at another mint).

This isn't even close to a "superfake." It has smoking-gun proof that it's counterfeit.

 

This was an interesting question to ask, but for there to be any "excess dies" with identical markings the mark on the cheek would have to have existed on a master die or working hub and that seems unlikely. But a good question to ask, or at least something to think through. If it occurred it seems to me that Philadelphia would have to have created the dies and distributed to both Mints. But this is also unlikely since there was quality control along the way.

We also assume that the TPG graders are knowledgeable about dies, and I don't think that is true. It seems to me that they often have tunnel vision and evaluate the coin in front of them and not look for outside the box issues. Maybe if they all VAMmed a wider variety of coins these type overlap issues would stand out.

 

HawkeEye, posted: "We also assume that the TPG graders are knowledgeable about dies, and I don't think that is true."

You know what they say about assumptions?

"It seems to me that they often have tunnel vision and evaluate the coin in front of them and not look for outside the box issues. Maybe if they all VAMmed a wider variety of coins these type overlap issues would stand out."

Know what. What you say MAY be true for the rookies; but those folks don't get to grade dollars. I'll bet a funny thing happens at the TPGS, when you look at thousands and thousands of dollars (perhaps you've heard of John Roberts or Randy Campbell) you might recognize some of the characteristics on most dated dollars besides the 81-S! I'll bet most Morgan collectors even here on CT would know that obverse was on an 84-CC. I did and I don't collect the things.

 

Not sure if someone replied to this. I thought the very same thing. Then I realized that they meant the fake was so good, it was "super" good and this they call it a super fake. A bit it a misnomer based on the general understanding of what super-fake is.