1827 25C. Counterfeit?

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by Welddriver, Jun 12, 2023.

  1. Welddriver

    Welddriver New Member

    Received this in a batch of silver.
    It has no attraction to a magnet I used a 405 lb pull neodymium to be sure.
    I don't have a scale to use. I think the numbers in the date are to large even for a 1800's restrike. The finish just seems off. There is no visible seams.
    Thoughts? 20230612_141012.jpg 20230612_141047.jpg 20230612_142350.jpg 20230612_141355.jpg 20230612_142726.jpg
    Jack D. Young likes this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest

    to hide this ad.
  3. longnine009

    longnine009 Darwin has to eat too. Supporter

    I want mine to have Mickley's initials on it. :troll:
  4. mrweaseluv

    mrweaseluv Supporter! Supporter

    bust halves did not have reeded edges until 1836 so yeah fake or at minimum tampered with

    don't mind me had it in my head it was a half dollar lol
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2023
    SensibleSal66 and Cheech9712 like this.
  5. Publius2

    Publius2 Well-Known Member

    It is not the B-1 nor the B-2, the only two die marriages for the year. Neither obverse nor reverse are correct.

    Reeded edge is correct for this quarter series.

    I haven't compared the OP's coin with all the restrikes.

    Tentatively, given the grainy surfaces, I would guess a cast counterfeit despite no evident edge seam.

    Do you have a weight and diameter?
    Eduard likes this.
  6. longshot

    longshot Enthusiast Supporter

    The grainy surfaces are a big red flag.

    Weigh it.
    Gallienus likes this.
  7. Mr.Q

    Mr.Q Well-Known Member

    Cleaned, grainy, and odd. I agree with @Publius2, weight, diameter, and in my opinion, a microscope will help. Good luck.
  8. Cheech9712

    Cheech9712 Every thing is a guess

    Who’s Mickey?
  9. longnine009

    longnine009 Darwin has to eat too. Supporter

    Joseph Mickley was a prominent early coin collector who had the mint strike him four proof 1827 quarters. I believe the die used was a repunched 1822 or 1823.

    Last edited: Jun 14, 2023
  10. KBBPLL

    KBBPLL Well-Known Member

    Uh, the date logo is completely wrong. Unless I'm missing something.
    Jack D. Young likes this.
  11. ldhair

    ldhair Clean Supporter

    It may still have some value if it is counterfeit.
  12. SensibleSal66

    SensibleSal66 U.S Casual Collector / Error Collector

    Yea, maybe on Ebay. :rolleyes:
  13. ldhair

    ldhair Clean Supporter

    There are collectors of counterfeit coins and some are worth more than the real thing. I don't believe they can be sold on Ebay.
  14. Publius2

    Publius2 Well-Known Member

    That is often true where the real one is more or less common. But I don't think it would be the case for a 1827 quarter. They are so rare (R-7 for the B-1 and R-6+ for the B-2) that I doubt anyone would pay more for a counterfeit.

    BTW, Greysheet still lists the 1827s as proofs but Tompkins says no way these are proofs. Excellent and long discussion on the 1827s in Tompkins book.
    longshot likes this.
  15. Publius2

    Publius2 Well-Known Member

    Absolutely correct @KBBPLL. The genuine one on the right is the 1827 B-2, Late die state. Characteristic is the rusted die marks at the date and running to Star 13. This was a restrike done from the original dies sometime around 1876. These are called the "Rusted Die Silver Restrikes" to separate them from the "Rusted Copper Restrikes" struck around the same time but on very thick copper planchets.
  16. OCOPR48

    OCOPR48 Member

    Seems to me the cross over on the 8 is not correct for the 1827. KBBPLL post is correct.
  17. KBBPLL

    KBBPLL Well-Known Member

    Yes I picked a restrike image but the fonts on all the real ones looked identical. 827 are all wrong on the fake.
  18. Publius2

    Publius2 Well-Known Member

    All of the genuine 1827s use the same obverse. That is why the date is the same on all genuine pieces regardless of when struck. This obverse was first used in 1822 for 1822 dated coins. It was used again in 1823 and repunched a three over the two. Used again in 1827 but this time all four digits were repunched with a different set of number punches.

    Going from memory here so if I got somethimg wrong go ahead and pile on.
    Cheech9712 likes this.
  19. Jack D. Young

    Jack D. Young Well-Known Member

  20. KBBPLL

    KBBPLL Well-Known Member

    Jack D. Young likes this.
  21. Jack D. Young

    Jack D. Young Well-Known Member

    50 articles on Coin Week seem like I have:D...
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page