New contemporary counterfeit thred.....

Why would a counterfeiter go through the trouble of faking dimes, when they could do quarters or halves? I thought it was a half as well at first.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

If it's a modern Chinese copy, they counterfeit everything. They're all collectible and sell at a premium. Even the dimes.

 

It’s clearly a dime... yeah not worth 10 cents but still a dime. Don’t forget some dates are scarce and a dime may be more valuable than a half dollar of the same year in a similar condition.

 

Who knows? Francis Henning was famously caught counterfeiting Jefferson nickels in the mid 1950s.

 

So update.... i reached out on the link that Evan8 provided and emailed him all these pictures and asked for his opinion on it. He says it looks like a worn JR-9 (dont know what that means) that somebody tooled away the ( C. ).

 

Very interesting “coin.” For what it’s worth, its die marriage is JR-4, which means it is either a fake struck with dies made from a genuine coin or it is genuine. Here are some other JR-4’s in various states of preservation (all are PCGS TrueViews):



You can make out the wacky denticles near star 1 and how strong “UNUM” is even with heavy wear. So many of the peculiarities can be chalked up to its die marriage.

Notice that all of the “C’s” in the denomination are strong, though, even on the worn coin. That is very odd and not a characteristic of this die marriage. That could be due to a poor counterfeiting job (if it’s fake) or due to circulation damage (if it’s real or if it’s a successful contemporary counterfeit).

EDIT: the worn coin is a JR-9 and not a JR-4. For some reason I thought this obverse was only used in one die marriage. My bad.

 

So @NSP how come he said in the email JR-9 and whats the difference between a 4 and a 9?

 

JR-4 and JR-9 share the same obverse, but their reverses are different. The easiest place to tell is the position of the D in UNITED relative to the end of the scroll.

And I just realized the worn example in my other post is a JR-9 and not a JR-4. Oops.

 

Thank you @NSP

 

I'm inclined to believe Gerry Fortin over everyone else in this thread, including me.

I thought it was fake because of the missing C, weird denticles, and the 3 in the date looked a bit off. Those things, plus the extensive wear lead me to the contemporary counterfeit idea.

 

I meant more in lines with it being a contemporary counterfeit. I understand there would be reason to fake it today.

 

There would be MORE reason to fake a dime back the than today. A dime was a significant amount of money. And why fake dimes rather than say half dollars or dollars? For the same reason it is easier to pass a fake twenty than a fake hundred. People had more to lose accepting the larger denominations so they looked at them more carefully and you were more likely to get caught.

 

I think this coin has been holed and then well plugged--that explains the lack of the C after 10 and the parallel disturbance in the obverse field.