Featured A “Family” of struck fake Draped Bust Dollars

In my Coin World podcast from the 2019 Dayton EAC Convention discussion on counterfeits we discussed 3 "families" of fakes, the 1804 "C-6" half cent set, the 1833 "N-5" large cent set and the 1795 "off-center bust" dollar set.

The 1795 off-center bust, known as variety B-14, BB-51 is unique to the date and an obvious bad Numismatic choice for a family of differently dated counterfeits! Comparison images courtesy PCGS:



From the internet on a popular Coin Forum two different examples were separately posted for review and discussion; the main concern was authenticity by both OP’s.

Posted Review Example
​

I have created a set of images comparing this with the second posted example and highlighted common marks between the two as follows.

Obverse comparison of two study examples
The common “puncture” marks
​

These common marks have lead others to nickname these the “vampire” counterfeits, although there must be a genuine source example out there somewhere!

Reverse comparison of two study examples
​

The reverses are pretty unremarkable for common marks; the red circle highlights a rim ding unique to the second example of these two.

These “coins” are pretty good representations of a genuine 1795 off-center bust dollar!

Comparison to a known genuine example (courtesy PCGS)
​

Now the fun begins, as the counterfeiters use the base example and die and create the improbable “family” series of dates.

To date we have images for 1796, 1797, 1798 and a mystery 1799 half-member!

1796 “Replica” off-center bust
​

Of course there are no off-center bust varieties for the year but here you have one complete with the “fang” marks and stamped REPLICA.

But there are those that are not so stamped and appear pretty deceptive to the inexperienced of the series.

1796 off-center bust counterfeit
​

As I noted in the podcast a Red Book would help weed many of these out!

And next are the “1797’s” as the family just keeps expanding!

This one sports a realistic looking die break.​

And of course there is a “1798” version complete with matching family marks!

And the last, more of a half-brother if you would is this “1799” correctly centered bust but the same reverse as the other family members which is wrong for a 1799!


As I have previously stated in other articles one of the best ways to protect yourself from this type of fake for sale is to learn the series yourself.

Buy the reference books, join a discussion group or club focused on your interests (such as Early American Coppers/ “EAC”) and ask other experienced members and friends. And review similar items on the internet- major auction house's sales archives and NGC's and PCGS's variety pages are great on-line resources.

As always, the research and summary articles continue to be a collaborative effort with many EAC members and “Dark Side” friends participating and contributing!

Best- Jack D. Young EAC 5050

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Very interesting as always! It seems like this "family" is a little more varied than some. I'll have to check the fake bust dollar I bought for my black cabinet to see if it falls into this family. Mine is definitely a Shanghai mint special, but I didn't find it particularly deceptive.

 

Thanks, Jack. Great article! How deceptive are the early dollar counterfeits? Are there any known cases where the TPGs were fooled?

 

One way to protect yourself is to know that the off-center variety was only made in 1795. If you see one with any other date, you know it's bad.

 

None in genuine TPG holders that I am aware of, but in fake holders yes.

 

That one might be the host coin. It is much sharper than every other counterfeit of this type I have seen. In particular, look at the sharpness of the leaves on the reverse and the clarity of metal movement on the hits on the neck.

 

That has to be just about the least convincing fake PCGS holder I've ever seen.

 

Yea, used NGC inserts!

 

The 1795 is sorta convincing. The rest are plain awful. This a series I know well and most fakes are horrible

 

Thanks Bill; I agree and TypeCoin971793 noted the 1st 1795 example could actually be the genuine source coin for these.

 

Two comments, the "dig" at the truncation of the bust above the 1 does not appear on all the fakes from this hub, but it is on most of them. Apparently the hub itself was damaged not long after it was made, so the source coin will NOT have that dig on it.

Second the two marks indicated on stars 4 and 5 can be used to condemn coins of other dates, but do NOT use them to call a 1795 a fake. Those marks are actually on the 1795 B-14 variety.

 

Very nice and thoughtful write-up. Thank you, Jack.

 

Agreed Conder101; I only circled the breaks at the stars on the 1st two '95 examples to indicate everything transferred between these two.

 

I just had an experience today by a friend who I’ve bought some good coins from. He’s a house clean out guy who is an expert in military antiques. He passed me a 1845 seated dollar. I looked at it in a glance and thought it looked a little questionable but considering the source probably not. With a loupe I didn’t like it at all and the scale test it failed. My thoughts was a higher quality cast fake of real silver that fooled someone before and my friend after when he bought it. At the same show we we’re all looking at a confederate civil war short sword. Not my area of expertise but I thought it real and we all did but so many fakes of them. My thought was real as I know early metal work very well

 

Was the hub damaged, or were some dies “repaired”? It’s also possible that the protruding bump on the die broke off.