Featured 1797 S-139 Large Cent "Suspect" Examples and Initial Research

This signals the end of coin collecting by anyone other than the very rich or those collecting common date pennies.

Only the rich will be able to afford the type of expertise and equipment it will take to evaluate each coin, failing that, the only collectibles will be stuff too cheap to forge.

It is easy to imagine the die being modified to exclude all the markers that make this coin identifiable. How can anyone find a new variety of this coin since anything new will be suspect? Non-rare key dates (1928 Peace Dollar) may already be out there, slabbed and certified. The proper silver/copper ratio isn't going to be a problem if they're getting $200 each for them.

Stick a fork in it, the hobby is done - because while the forgeries keep getting better and you won't know when they've perfected it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Counterfeits have always been and will probably always be part of the Hobby; it is the knowledgeable hobbyist/ collector/ dealer who has the best opportunity to protect himself from this continuing threat. All of these latest fakes have had identifiable issues when compared to legitimate genuine examples, it just takes the knowledge and restrained review to help flush them out. It may seem rather cliché, but I have been told time and time again to “know what you collect, collect what you know” and this seems ever more relevant now.

As a casual collector of early large cents I research every item I consider purchasing; I compare it to images of known genuine examples, consider the seller and any provenance info. Fortunately in early American copper there is a large amount of knowledge and documented information and images available to aid this review, along with experienced folks in specialized clubs like EAC to ask. And, getting the word out through these clubs and internet forums and groups is an effort to make those participating in this hobby aware of the concerns and hopefully create proper caution to make informed collecting decisions, not to “stick a fork in it” as noted.

 

Jack,
I appreciate your informed response; however, I think these counterfeits are taking things to the next level. I think there are a couple of questions that need to further consideration - questions to which I'd like to see answers.

1: How can there be any 'new' finds if coins that don't match known examples are considered fake?

2: What good is provenance 100 years from now when fakes have been sitting in collections for decades? At best, provenance is only as good as the last story told and will be completely lost if a coin is re-slabbed.

I'm not bagging on your expertise; I'm relatively new to the hobby.

That said, it seems to me that using the article above as a guide to improve tactics counterfeiters should be able to put together some fakes that would pass even an expert review.

If you have to employee an expert and a $500,000 MRI to authenticate a coin the whole hobby will be in the hands of the rich or those who collect pocket change. I don't see how we avoid that fate.

 

A new example not matching known genuine ones in circulation and surface marks is a good thing; if it does, then at least one of them is a fake. As far as the counterfeiters learning and improving their “product” going forward, I am sure you are correct, but they started masking marks and re-engraving their working dies well before we started publishing articles on the subject, but, there are other “tells” in the proper evaluation that is not shared in summaries like this and are known by specialists and clubs as I cited. Join a club, gain the collective knowledge.

Quite honestly, in early copper many provenances are well established and expanded condition census examples imaged and documented, with even the best carrying identifying marks; the coin that will stand out and signal red flags is the “perfect” surfaced one resulting from trying to take out all of the existing marks!

And, actually re-slabbing is a good thing- at least the coin is then covered by the TPG’s guarantee of authenticity if proven a fake.

My thought here is the Hobby has survived counterfeit attacks in the past; with knowledge and proper due diligence we can sort through these as well.

 

Well Jack, I have to give you props.
You've got me investigating fake Peace Dollars.
See: https://coinweek.com/counterfeits/counterfeit-coin-detection-the-1928-peace-dollar/

 

Coin Week is a good source of articles on counterfeits:

https://coinweek.com/category/counterfeits/

 

You've done some good thinking and have excellent questions. Your post takes me back forty + years when similar thoughtful fellows as you seem to be were fearful about the future of their hobby and were asking the exact same questions.

 

Yes; NGC has been helpful by applying resources to image, weigh and XRF scan examples submitted, both suspect ones and known genuine ones of similar dates. In the higher resolution images there are surface issues that show and appear to be somewhat common with other documented and imaged fakes. The XRF data will hopefully help characterize good and bad by looking for levels of minor elements in the copper of each. More data is needed to be significant enough to draw any possible conclusions.

 

Following is a map I created for S-139. You'll see marks in four different colors Red, Blue, Green and Yellow.

The Red marks are the result from overlaying PCGS coins 32788127, 26773114, 28440203 and source coin. These marks appear to be common to all 4 coins thus originating from the authentic 1797 S-139 die. Any authentic coin of the same die stage and state should exhibit these markers. A coin absent of any of these red markers is an indication the coin is counterfeit.

The Blue marks are features over the source coin which appear to be common to the counterfeit coins but are not common to the PCGS authentic coins. These are markers/features of a counterfeit coin which originate from the source coin when transferring the coin design to the counterfeit dies.

The Green marks are features common to the counterfeit coins but are not present on the source coin. These are markers/features of a counterfeit coin which originate from the manufacturing of the counterfeit dies but were not a characteristic of the coin design transferred to the dies from the source coin.

The Yellow marks are makers identified by Jack as counterfeit makers while common to some, I could not verify to be common to all the counterfeit examples.

Actually this is an exercise better suited with review of a group of people. Meaning any the marks on the map could be the result of pareidolia (seeing patterns that do not exist) or prosopagnosia (not seeing patterns that do exist).

 

I agree, that looks quite amazing!

 

NGC's official position on this one:

 

I was brought to my attention that I failed to mark the scratch extending through the right bow and leaf. The following new map shows this common mark inside the circle.

As I said in my previous post - this type of exercise is better suited for multiple sets of eyes. Pareidolia (seeing patterns that do not exist) or prosopagnosia (not seeing patterns that do exist) does present a problem for a single set of eyes.

 

Turns-out I forgot to add the new map to my post.

 

What was your initial tell that this coin was fake? I just want to know your thought/examination process. I buy and sell a lot of early US stuff, and I want to protect myself and my buyers from these super-fakes.

 

Looking at the Map I created above (which has not been verified and confirmed by another party by the way). Oh and please feel free to correct or clarify anything I am writing herein.

The marks in red are those characteristics that appear to be common to the 3 PCGS authentic examples and the proposed source coin (which is also an authentic example of S-139). What makes the source coin unique in this situation - is it is the coin believed to be the example used as the model from which the counterfeit dies were created. The red marks are those I propose are characteristics of the authentic S-139 obverse and reverse dies. Therefore characteristics transferred to authentic coins struck at the same die stage and state.

Keep in mind - die cracks tend to be progressive in nature. Meaning they tend to grow as more coins are struck. They affect the physical integrity of the die. Eventually leading to die breaks and eventual failure of the die.

Die scratches, gouges and clashes do not affect the integrity of the die. They are more or less surface imperfections of a die. Therefore they tend to be regressive in nature. Meaning they tend to become less pronounced as more coins are struck. They wear away and soften the same as all other designs characteristics of a die does through use. Scratches, gouges and clashes of a die can occur at anytime during coin production. But they exhibit strongest on coinage when first occurred and tend to fade over time.

Anyway an authentic coin of the same die state and stage should exhibit those characteristics I have indicated in red. A coin which does not exhibit these characteristics is suspect.

The marks in blue are characteristics (gouges, scratches and etc) of the source coin which are common to the counterfeit coins but are not a characteristic exhibited by the 3 authentic PCGS examples. I propose these characteristics were transferred to the counterfeit dies when modeled and created from the source coin. Any coin exhibiting these blue markers is a suspect counterfeit.

The marks in green are characteristics which appear to be common to the counterfeit coins but appear not to be a characteristics of the source coin. A scratch, gouge, added element or etc of the counterfeit die itself. Any coin exhibiting these green markers is a suspect counterfeit.

The yellow marks are counterfeit die markers indicated by Jack in the OP that although were common to some; I couldn't verify, due to the images provided, to be common to all the counterfeit coins. Any coin exhibiting these yellow characteristics is a suspect counterfeit.

This is not to say an authentic coin couldn't exhibit some similar characteristics as the counterfeits.

 

This is the process I go through and went through with the Colonial "Super Fakes"; the only addition from this as posted is a time-line of all known examples to try and weed out any duplicates. I am away out of town and have this image saved:


The 1797 "S-139" variety was in my data base of suspicious ones from an initial submission package from a proven bad submitter and bad "coins". I continue to review examples as I am aware of them and am at least as patient as the counterfeiters.

 

"Coin" was sent to an early large cent expert and auction cataloger and he determined it to be counterfeit as well- nearing the end of the process with this one!