Don't be tempted by this one . . .

I’m having trouble seeing anything that jumps out as “fake” also. I guess the obverse appears a bit weak, but that could be a result of less than optimal pictures. Honestly the biggest red flag (to me at least) is the fact that it’s being sold by a foreign seller.

The coin on eBay appears to be (or is counterfeited off of) 5-E based on the mintmark position and orientation.
http://www.seateddimevarieties.com/Briggs/1888s.jpg

Also, if you compare the spacing of the numerals in the date, it’s pretty apparent that the eBay coin and the Aliexpress coin are not the same. Obviously there’s still a good chance it’s counterfeit but if it is it’s a pretty darn good counterfeit.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I asked for a close up of the shield. Here is what I received.

 

What raises red flags for me is the overall dullness of the coin, lack of details in the devices and the mushy "Liberty".

 

Now there's high resolution!

 

In my post on page 2 (Saturday 1:17a.m.)
I made specific design and date/mm comments.

 

Yes I accessed Briggs on the GFRC site as did you.
Both Gerry and now Brian Greer have responded to my emails and both say there is no obvious reason to conclude it is counterfeit. But that in-hand inspection would be required, which would allow weight and composition to be studied.

 

Lol, that looks like the same picture just magnified.

 

Yes which really just means they aren't sure from the pictures. It's good enough that it isn't definitively blatantly obvious but not good enough to say for sure.

Which really is the deal with it. Anyone who wants to talk themselves into thinking it's real can if they're willing to explain some things away. Only getting it in hand/to the TPGs is going to get a definitive conclusion. Which basically leaves us with which of the two do we think is more likely: a fairly well done fake, or a real high grade coin that probably had to have several things done to it ending up in the UK

 

There are several books on counterfeits. I think the one easiest to find for you would be "DETECTING COUNTERFEIT COINS". If it is not still in print it is still in stock at most major hobby book dealers. Look in the classifieds of Coin World and Numismatic News.

 

The three things that HOLLER "Fake" to me are:

1) The IN GOD WE TRUST ribbon edging is not right.
2) The word LIBERTY should be FAAAAR clearer for one with so little wear. Besides, "LIBERTY" is incuse and should be the LAST element to be soft.
3) The luster is all wrong.
3a) The luster looks EXACTLY like on the Chinese fake ones.

I'm actually a little annoyed this even needs to be said. I thought far more of this audience. Guess I was wrong.

 

Agree with all of your points. Wouldn’t touch it with a pole. But in fairness after re-reading this thread, I would argue that the “audience” would agree the coin is counterfeit and a few would argue otherwise.

 

Just FYI, I have bought high-grade classic US coins from the UK before. They are fairly common. Never had a problem with fakes.

 

As for the OP coin, there are no 1888 S quarters for sale on the Chinese wholesale site. Just 1888. I tried buying one of those for a reference piece, but was sent a crappy cast 1891 half dollar. Very disappointed... Looks like I have a really good reason to order one now.

Some things that make me pause before calling it fake:

- The pictures were taken at an angle with intense direct light on the coin. That alone can make the coin luster look wonky and distort some of the details. LIBERTY is conveniently out of focus, as with the entire reverse, so it really is not possibly to say for certain how strong the details really are. We can make good guesses though, but those can’t be 100% certain.
- The detail is far superior to almost every fake I have seen. This is certainly not a $1.99 fake from China. I’d expect to pay $10-20 (or more) for a fake of this quality.
- The coin has the classic look of being overdipped.
- The coin’s variety can be attributed to a known genuine die pair. (But a die transfer would as well.)
- The contact marks are believable.

Some things that make me pause before calling it real:

- The fields seem to have a bit of concavity to them. I am not familiar with this issue enough to know of that is normal or not. It could also be the result of the lighting.
- There seems to be some lake effect going on, which is when the relief is not completely captured during a die transfer. I see this mainly in the drapery. Again, it could be the lighting.
- The luster does look odd, but as I said, the photography method can produce this effect.
- There seems to be a couple depressions above the right wing, but I see a dirth of telltale artifacts of Chinese fakery (random bumps and heavy polish lines).

Conclusion: I want to see this in hand and not judge authenticity solely on the (fairly poor) pictures given.

 

See my post above. There is far more genuine material than fakes in the UK.

No they’re not. I just looked.

The details are clearly AU+/MS

Compare with my 1877 CC

 

You, sir, are a most pleasant surprise! Keep asking your questions and don't let anyone shame you into carrying the flag of groupthink.

 

Foreign seller? It’s eBay UK not eBay China ;-)

Good points. I think we’d need better pictures to be sure about it.

 

Posts 16 and 19

 

Why didn't you share the photo?

 

Both posts mention only that the 88S quarters are know for a good strike, while the coin in question appears to be weakly struck. That’s a single (weak) indication.

 

I did, post 62.

I suggested he let a professional look at it, this morning he messaged me that he had sent images to numismatists in the U S, and the one that replied told him it he could not confirm a fake.