Counterfeit or real?

so I enlarged and tried to sharpen a bit the area Bob Evancho is questioning, If those are indeed raised bumps then that confirms that the coin is a fake.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Definitely needs to be checked by a specialist who can determine whether there are multiple die varieties known or if it could be a new die discovery before immediately concluding it's fake. Probability is not certainty.

 

How about an Apples to Apples comparison. This is from Heritage Auction Archives of a 1873 Trade Dollar Reverse. It differs significantly to the comp and matches the subject coin.

 

Side by side:


This doesn't mean it's real, but it does show it is at least a known die, whether copied or real.

 

this is a fake that I bought a few years back on eBay. note the small metal blobs scattered around.

 

I also noticed two "dots" on the reverse that match. One at the right side of the right foot of (C)A {design element} and one at the wing below the right foot of (C)A {not a design element.} They appear on the Heritage comp and the subject.

That pretty much leaves a choice of a transfer die counterfeit or authentic. The 2002 date of the Heritage comp makes me lean authentic because they really started the transfer die invasion around 2012, at least in Large Cent Counterfeits. The counterfeits before that were pretty crude.

 

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. Lot's of early coinage encountered rusty dies.

 

Very good photographs for me to enlarge. More questions? As you look at the obverse of the coin, could you take another picture of the right field of the coin? I am observing additional raised bumps between the stalks and the stars. Also on the reverse as you look at the right field off the wing and in line with the A of AmericA, I notice a raised bump. Could you take one of your quality pictures of this area? I'm still researching but I haven't read about a rusty die being used on the obverse and reverse. Also on the Talon on the left there appears to be a raised bump. If you could take a picture and post it of that talon, that would be appreciated. This is a very good coin to study. It continues to lead me to believe a struck counterfeit using a transfer die. Thank you for all you are doing and for other CoinTalk members giving their notes and observations.

 

here's an enlargement of the talon area, the original photo was somewhat unsharp, and with the increase in image size detail was lost.


looks like light reflecting off the "knuckle" over the middle claw.

 

That's a fair point. I have not seen a trade dollar yet with signs of die rust in the fields. CAn't say for sure it never happened but I have never seen it. Rust eats into the die and causes irregular raised bumps on the coin as we know. What I am referring to are bumps caused by bubbles in whatever medium was used to create the transfer die. These are almost perfectly spherical ( see the 1875 I posted) and are clearly different from rust bumps. That's why we need sharper pictures.

 

you can see multiple broken letters and missing serifs in the lettering. My raw 73P has just the broken E in UNITED. Few dies were made for the 1873 coins, so if the same hub was used over several years, and deteriorated, we could be looking at a transfer from a later year type 1 coin. Just speculating. Joe Kirchgesser is still working on his definitive book on trade dollars, my knowledge is at best basic.

 

larger image of right obv field as requested:

 

With that enlarged/enhanced pic of the reverse by @ksparrow I still revert back to my original statement about the denticles. I know there was a comment earlier about there being imperfect denticles out there on genuine coins, but I have never seen them so weak/incomplete as shown in this pic.

I stand by my claim of fake.

If anyone has images of any coin with denticles so poorly struck as this coin, I'd like to see them. (That sounds argumentative, but it isn't meant to be.)

 

I just went through 4 pages of 1873 trade dollars in the Heritage archives, all of the 73-P's had at most the broken top of the E in UNITED, none had an area of weak dentils like in the suspect coin, and I did not see any with die rust in the fields.

 

My specialty is Copper, so some of what I know might not cross over to silver.

I do know there is usually a mother coin with transfer dies which usually has some PMD that transfers to all strikes from those dies. Jack D. Young calls them "sister marks." He's about the most expert guy i know when dealing with counterfeits.

Since I can't usually tell the difference, other than something doesn't seem quite right on coins I spend a LOT of time on, I'm fascinated by how he does it.

But I'd like to know more about the bubbles created by the process of creating a transfer die. Large Cents are usually Aged and tumbled in an attempt to hide their fakeness. So with both real and counterfeits having similar unique PMD marks, it's just beyond me.

At some point you just have to have the coin in hand AND know what to look for. Then hope you're not fooled by the really good fakes. Of course, it is easier if the counterfeiters use materials which are different than the mint standards. But that isn't often the case with the most recent fakes.

 

There are many reasons an authentic coin can be missing detail. Flawed or thin planchet, weak strike (usually indicated by Bifurcation) which can make the font look fancy as copper doesn't flow into the devices (may work the same on silver) and grease or polish left on the dies which can make detail disappear.

Weakness of lettering and mushing of denticles is frequently seen as dies age.

None of this is evidence of authenticity, just a reason for not making a snap judgement about it being evidence of being counterfeit/fake.

Silver shouldn't have as many problems like this as copper AND I note they had better presses and planchets after 1815 when the presses were replaced.

I love talking numismatics rather than marketing UNLESS it's my coin and I'm wanting to know whether to part with it or NOT.

 

But Trade dollars are 420 grans with a +/- tolerance of 1.5 grains. 412 is way too light.

 

These two still do not look alike.
I am in the fake camp.

 

Thanks. I wasn't sure of the exact amount, but *thought* it was close to tolerances. Oops.

 

So far, the lightness is the most compelling argument for being counterfeit. It doesn't look worn enough to have lost that much weight through wear.

I'd double check the weight on a different scale though, since some scales are set with a holder and zeroed because it is expected to be used that way. Without it, everything comes up short by the weight of the holder. An alternative is to weigh a modern of known weight and see if it is light as well.