It's y#4, the other varieties apply to the 1871 (Meiji year 4) coins, not this 1870 (Meiji year 3) one.
The general crudeness of it compared to the one from 2007 auction is a sure sign this is a modern copy.
I would bet that they are made to look circulated instead of having actual wear. Most of the time pictures provided for such fakes are not large...
Not an original 1922
Matt is an upstanding guy and the first person I would go to when I have something that is mutually beneficial.
Well from the second picture it looks very much like close AM. First picture looked like significant distance, but I suppose that can be a trick...
I say funny because it makes no sense to me. Usually the business strikes I see with close AM have the left side of the M much thinner than the...
Wide, but it looks funny.
Don't lose faith man, just keep looking at both genuine examples and fakes and eventually your brain will be trained to spot the subtle details...
The whole point is that what you referring to as an "erasure mark" may be evidence of the mint mark being doctored, which would of course make the...
Or you could just google "Utrecht duit"...
Dutch duit, Utrecht
If you can get a really clear close-up of the mint mark that would help.
Check out the crude and irregular details. What jumps out at me right away is the stars, some points are hooked instead of sharp and even...
It could likely be an altered 1932-P with the mint mark applied. Common thing for these.
Both are fake.
In the area of $200 in this condition, at open auction and as a raw coin.
http://www.ebay.com/sch/Coins-World-/256/m.html?item=251473491430&ViewItem=&_ssn=southeastasiacollector These are much more obvious than the...
I doubt that 10k circulated coins of a relatively common date will have much of an effect. Now if they were all mint state, that may hurt a bit.
Well since even small denomination modern coins are still occasionally found counterfeited AND the edge is the hardest part to replicate...
Separate names with a comma.
