Does anyone see the same problems with this coin that I see? Maybe I'm just paranoid after reading books on counterfeits but there are a few things that just don't seem right here. I know it's hard to make a judgement from a photograph and it's hard to see why anyone would counterfeit a relatively common date and unpopular coin, but...
Don't know what you see to make you question it's authenticity. Looks ok to me, though probably lightly cleaned a long time ago. Guy~
I'm no expert Dave. Looks good to me but if I'm wrong someone with more experiance will chime in. I love to learn....
It looks like it has suffered from corrosion at some point and cleaned, but other than that I see nothing.
Are you talking about the slight pitting around the cleaned areas? It is easy to see the cleaning, but not sure what you refer to as the corrosion other than maybe the pitted areas.
Pitting is what corrosion does, so yes. On the obverse it runs from about the left arrow tip to the right arrow fletch. On the reverse it pretty covers the outer portion of the coin but is most noticeable in the RICA area.
Two cent coins do seem to pit rather easily for some reason. Even the better au examples will often have some. Maybe there was an inferior copper used for this series. Guy~
As I said, I find it hard to believe anyone would have made a counterfeit of this coin/date, so I assume it is genuine, as do you all. However, the things that made me wonder are things that the counterfeit experts tell you to look out for. What made me think about it at first, was the lack of an upper serif on the D in UNITED. I have since found that is not an error. But then, looking over the coin more closely, I found things that made me wonder. The overall granularity of the devices and lettering, which you explain as cleaned corrosion, but which is not present in the field. There are several bumps or bubbles in the field - between the top two leaves of the left wreath on the reverse, in the ribbon top above the D in GOD on the obverse, another one just to the right and above of that one, one in the field just to the right of the left feathers on the obverse, one in the shield at the top between the first and second sets of vertical bands, apparent bubbles in the dentils at about the 2:30 to 3:30 position on the obverse. At the top of the horizontal banding on the shield, the lines appear to extend into the scrollwork to the left and the bands are uneven just below the left and right scrolls. These things may all be design elements I don't know anything about or dust or other photographic artifacts or they might be the result of damage to the coin after minting or to the die before minting. But this brings up the question I would have - when a photograph of a coin is submitted here for evaluation, what do you specifically look for to make your determination. Many of the photos are far smaller and less clear than these I showed yet a positive determination is made that the coin is either real or fake. The pictures here are about 9x magnifications. Is there a book or internet reference that has full page photographs of "prefect" coins for comparison?
I color looks a little odd to me. It might be the lighting...or perhaps the coin was recolored at some point.
The coin looks cleaned, not fake. As an aside, and I'm anything but an expert, but I've never heard of a counterfeit 1866 two cent piece, and to be honest I've never seen a countefeit two cent piece either...Mike
p.s. does it pass the ring test? Is it the right weight? Do you see evidence of a casting seam or tooling on the edge to hide it? These are three things I'd immediately do to test the fake theory.
Counterfiet vs Genuine As far as I am concerned, this is a nice better than average example of a genuine VF Large Motto 1866 2 Cent piece. It is a very "clean" coin. There is no doubt the coin had been previously "cleaned", but evidently not with a highly abrasive cleaner. Coloring is normal and as I have seen on hundreds of these coins, nothing special. There are no known attributes, double lettering, recut dates, etc. There seems to be the usual contact marks generally found on coins and the strike is very good, evenly centered there is an even wear pattern across the coin - definately not a cast or otherwise a molded piece. Yes, there is some evidence of light corrosion (pitting) but nothing serious is noted. The missing Serif on the "D" is not a factor as many coins have taken a "hit" just right to flatten or obliterate a small character in a design or a filled die obstructs a part of a design device. I have seen many such things over 45 years in this business. I would not give it a second thought. Someone mentioned a "ring" test. I never heard of a ring test for a brass or bronze coin. In the old days, before electronic scales, measuring and other "assaying" devices, people had a tendency to "drop" the coin to listen to the "bell ring" of a heavy silver coin - which told practically nothing as to authenticity because many counterfiets were made from 90%, or so, silver content - and, this worked to some extent on smaller denominations, too. But, too many "drops" damaged a nice coin and they usually slid a grade or two over time. As to "bumps and bubbles" in the field, many coin planchets were formed out to private concerns and the quality from one batch to another was not up to par sometimes - I have even seen laminated sections on these old coins ........ on our modern Lincolns one can readily see "bubbles" but this is from the copper plating, and in 1866 the Two Cent piece was not plated ..... but, this is another story ........ If the coin is within the mint's limits of 96 grains, I'd say there is no question as to it's authenticity. Actually, I'd say there should be no question or concern at all about this coin being genuine. Enjoy that beauty!
Actually n 1865 the serif broke off the D on the reverse Master hub and a great many of the reverse dies from 1865 on are missing the serif. The ring test is valid for a brass or bronze coin when it is being used to detect a cast fake or an electrotype. Before the 1980's the mint made all of it's own planchets except for the cent and half cent planchets in the 1797 to mid 1830's period. And the mint made planchets come with laminations as well. It wasn't a matter of inferior outside contractor products. In fact the reason the mint used outside sources for the cent and half cent planchets was because the private sector could make them better and cheaper than the mint could. Even after paying for labor and shipping.
