Someone says I sold them a counterfeit. Are they right?

Someone bought this coin from me and says he was told it is a "really good modern counterfeit made of 90% gold." I don't see anything wrong with it. Am I missing something? Would like to learn if so. @TypeCoin971793 , @physics-fan3.14

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I can't remember where, it might have been coinweek, but I recall reading that raised lumps in the lettering of Liberty was one of the markers to identify a counterfeit of these coins.

 

I'll admit that I'm not an expert in this series. Did he say why he thought it was counterfeit?

After reading NGC's guide, I went and took a look at some examples on Heritage. NGC says the 1924 St Gaudens is one of the most commonly counterfeited coins. They say that differences in luster is one of the biggest indicators. Comparing your coin to the ones I see on Heritage, the luster does look different on yours - although I'm not sure if that's just the image.

You could also ask @Insider for his opinion - he is a well known authenticator.

NGC guide: https://www.ngccoin.com/resources/counterfeit-detection/top/united-states/24/

 

Am I missing something? Why would someone bother to counterfeit a common date Saint with the same composition (90% AU)? Most of the value is intrinsic. Wouldn't you try to counterfeit a date/mm that has more numismatic value.

 

Here it is .
https://coinweek.com/us-coins/us-go...in-detection-1924-saint-gaudens-double-eagle/

 

Thank you

 

In the Middle East, likely Lebanon they were making them as monetary counterfeits in the 1950's-1970's. A monetary counterfeit will be just a fake with the correct weight and fineness of precious metal not made to fool numismatists but used as a trade coin. British sovereigns were the most counterfeited - in Muslim countries they did not want gold coins with Queen Elizabeth II on them so the forgers there were minting King George VI coins - especially the 1925 date.

 

In the mid-20th century, it was illegal for Americans to own gold. However, you were still allowed to own numismatic items (collectible or rare coins). Thousands and thousands of seemingly common date gold coins were made (primarily in Lebanon) to let people buy gold. They were actually quite well done counterfeits - if the coin C-B-D posted is a counterfeit, then it is likely one of the Lebanese variety.

Here is a good article about the Lebanese counterfeiters : https://goldsovereigns.co.uk/sovereignfakesin20thcentury.html

 

I've only ever seen Lebanese gold dollars. Never personally seen a double eagle. But I'm not convinced this coin is counterfeit anyway.

 

Perhaps. It has been a long time since a low alloy of gold was struck into a coin with numismatic value far above it. By the 1980's there was rarely a difference between the gold in a genuine or fake. Obviously, $3 and $1 gold coin produced the most profit. Today the value of a common $20 is often just a little over melt so your question makes sense. Nevertheless, fakes of these coins from "never-seen-before - "new" dies still show up. Everything is counterfeited. You'll often find one or two counterfeit 20 Fr's in a fresh tube from Europe.

I see nothing suspicious on the OP's coin but the fakes are so good that magnification is usually needed to be sure. In any case, This coin is not one of the low alloy, poor color Lebanese fakes of the 70's.

 

I would answer, but I would be simply repeating @scottishmoney ’s and @physics-fan3.14 ’s excellent replies:

I got to handle about a dozen in the ANA’s “black cabinet”. The tells I use are:

1. Shallowness of Liberty’s hair
2. Luster type (should be matte for 1907-1916 and satin for 1920-1933)
3. Details of the capitol building
4. Depressions and toolmarks.

That is one of a few dozen (I assume) known counterfeits for this date, and it is much worse than most of them. Sticking to the highlighted diagnostics in that article will make you miss almost all of the Lebanese counterfeits. The style looks very Chinese, but NGC did not indicate the metallic composition of this counterfeit.


All that said, I don’t see anything *glaringly* obvious that indicates it to be a fake. The luster issues can be explained by the apparent circulation and the lighting. Even if it was fake, you could melt it into a bar and the premium would still consistent with a genuine coin.

@C-B-D is there a gap between the right side of Liberty’s arm and her hair, and are those toolmarks I see above the eagle? If so, then I would suspect it to be a fake.

 

Yes it definitely looks fishy! Both arms holding the torch and the olive branch look questionable! The more I look at it, the worse it looks! Yo @C-B-D did they ask for a refund?

 

No and no.

 

He said he is taking it to Julian Leidman tomorrow for another opinion. I told him I'd gladly refund him. Don't want my name associated with selling fakes. But would also like to take more pics and learn from it if I did, by chance.

 

An absolutely reasonable decision. I hope its real, but if you do find evidence it is fake please share with us.

 

Yep, I hear you, that's the way to do it!

 

It doesn't look like any of the examples in the Fivaz book, although that is not an exhaustive list. The coin itself looks ok to me, I don't see any mushiness or strange marks or lumps.

 

@Roger W Burdette may be able to provide more information? He recently wrote a book on the series (I haven't read it myself, yet, but I've heard its good).

He doesn't normally post to these forums, but he occasionally appears when the Bat Signal is flashed.

 

Looking at the example from the CoinWeek article, the stars near the capital building on the lower obverse look like they extend into the rim. On the coin you posted, they are more reminiscent of the star positions on the NGC slabbed example. See below.

BTW, that slab grade looks exceedingly generous. A Morgan would barely make MS60 with that many dings. Perhaps it's different with gold . . .

Just my thoughts, and revealing my ignorance.

Z

 

The *extremely* unusual semi-prooflike appearance is a bigger indication that this coin might have problems.

In the entire series, only 2 1922 St.G$20's have been designated PL. I can't be sure that this isn't the same coin submitted twice. To have that appearance is incredibly rare.