http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=8320573329&category=541&rd=1 I'm guessing it was some sort of unfinished counterfeit, but I've never seen anything like it before - the strike is obviously wrong in areas. Anyone else have an idea? It must be some sort of unfinished fake - I'm guessing the next stage in the process was to clip and smooth, but I can't figure why - maybe this process avoids obvious signs of casting lines?
Does look fake...can tell much about world coins...now if that was a US Trade Dollar I might be able to make a better guess ;--) Speedy
I'm not gonna say for sure, but it is questionable enough to me that I wouldn't bid on it. I'm very skeptical about the comments made in the description regarding Dan Sedwick. I know Dan, and I've never known him to say he doesn't know. There was a brief MX mint mark series, but I am not aware of it being used in 1732 - it was used in 1733. Let alone the fact that the mint mark, MX is reversed on the right side to XM. And I have never heard of it being done in a klippe - let alone one that perfectly square. And there are enough design charactersitics that are different from the examples that I know - that they make this coin very questionable.
I missed that part about Dan - I actually stopped reading when I got to the stardard 'I know nothing about coins' disclaimer! I think the recap of the discussion looks like a favorable paraphrase - 'he could not authenticate the coin' = 'he said the coin was not authentic' HEHE I think what set me off first, was the appearance of the numbers. The curl of the three and the two strike me as way off. I didn't even notice the inversion.
The only way this piece is authentic is if it is a square piece of silver struck with dies. BUT...the edhe of the coin design (the denticals) is overlapped in places by the blank area outside the design. This says to me that it is cast.
