I'm not so sure about these two IHC...

Good morning!

Now that CT is working again, I can share these two Indian Head Cents I recently picked up...and about which I have severe doubts about their authenticity.

First off - the 1894:



The color seems off (my image is pretty accurate in reflecting the color), the date looks weirdly shaped, the details are mushy and the surfaces are porous. Such a shame, because it's not in bad shape, were it genuine.



Now the 1908 - honestly, the reverse doesn't look half bad (in fact, the entire coin doesn't look half bad until you pull out a loupe.) The color is a bit off, but not as bad as the 1894. It actually has good luster in hand. The obverse has a TON of die scratches across the bust, which would suggest a cool variety...but all the details are weak, the date looks weird, the denticles are almost non-existent in places, and the rim seems strange. Also a shame, because I feel like it would at least be a high AU (if I was comfortable about it's authenticity.



So, what do you think - am I being too harsh on these coins? Or is my gut doing its job correctly and telling me to stick these in my counterfeit bin?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Right? The denticles are absolutely terrible and very inconsistent - as long as you can zoom in. In hand (with my 20-15 vision) it looks like a nice UNC IHC.

 

I'm busy now and I'll have to get back to you later on this but I think the 1894 had different date placements. I think I recall we have two that are radically different, and they're not overdates. Or, maybe you might just research these placements, yourself. If you do, look at a lot of samples, not just several.

 

Both counterfeit. Style of letters and date crude.

 

Not really my area but they both look strange to me.

 

They look like they were cleaned.

 

I would agree. What convinces me is things like why are the outlines of the devices sharp yet details a pile of wet mush? Inconsistent denticles, etc.

Its how ancients are evaluated for fakes, since we do not have mechanical precision and necessarily die matches to judge against. If @Insider knows styles of letters and dates that is excellent information too, I just do not know them offhand for IHCs.

 

Trust this

 

I'm happy to see that others agree with my gut instinct - into the counterfeit bin they go (in 2x2, of course.)

 

The 1908 is a bad fake, it has the type 1 obv hub that was discontinued in 1886.
After blowing up the 1894, I'd say it is fake as well.

 

Both fake IMO. I really question why anyone would fake coins like that though. Seems like the risk and effort vs reward wouldn't be worth it. But, then, Henning counterfeited Jefferson nickels in the 40s or 50s, so...

 

The 1894 is a no-questions-asked absolutely fake. That was easy.

The 1908 is a slightly better fake, so that one took me 10 seconds to identify enough red flags to fill a page.

 

It amazing, but the Chinese will take an absolute nothing, common coin, like a 1908 Indian Cent and counterfeit it. I guess time and labor are so cheap there that they can do that.

The 1894 is a better than average date, but the sharpness of the date compared to the rest of the thing (I REFUSE to call this junk "coins.") is, as John Wayne said in one of his cop films, "Too D--- convenient."

 

The 1908 has a Type-1 reverse...and you know that ain't right.

 

Type 1 reverse? Wouldn't that be the weak N rev? The 1908 has the bold N rev which should be the correct one. Or is there another rev used on the IHC's?

 

Last feather points between the I and C on the type 1 obverse and between the C and A on type 2. They switched in 1886.

 

Sorry...I meant "obverse".

 

Well, as it turns out, I was mistaken. It's the 1890 with the different date placements. FWIW, see them here...

 

During that era the dates were punched into the dies by hand with a four digit logotype punch so the date placement would differ slightly on every die, just as mintmarks tended to "wander" when they were punched in by hand. There is a area the should be in, but their placement in that area wanders.