Featured A “Family” of struck fake large Cents

After writing the previous “family” article about rather deceptive struck counterfeit half cents based on the genuine 1804 “C-6” variety (at coinweek.com ) I felt it timely to document another member of the family, the counterfeit large cents based on the 1833 “N-5’s”.

Just a note, I consider this type of counterfeit an intermediate level of deceptive “types”, better than the lower level fakes from the ones I refer to as “Chinese Cartoon” types up to the multiple lower level “Ali” offerings.

These struck fakes are documented in several different denominations and varieties and are fairly accurate as compared to the source coins, but the counterfeiters use the same layout and change the date to create a series of fakes, resulting in impossible die combinations/ states. These take a higher level of knowledge to discern, with being savvy with the series and variety attributions part of the best defense.

I co-authored an article for EAC a couple of years ago about a suspicious 1816 large cent for sale on the internet. The following is the image that centered that discussion.

“1816” original Internet Listing
​

My collaborator than ran through all of the known varieties for 1816 large cents to prove it didn’t match any of them!

This prompted additional discussion among EAC members with another adding the following- “once again, 1833 Newcomb 5, except for the date. de'ja vu all over again. this one even shows the rim ding above the D from the mother coin”.

“The mother coin was an 1833N5 with a rim ding over the D of UNITED. These are easy to spot once you know what was copied to make the dies. Most of these middle date counterfeits match the attribution points of the 33/5 including the die cracks of a MDS example. The most dangerous of the group is the 1833, it passes the die attribution test for N5 including the "horned 8" but the rim and edge is still wrong”.

Counterfeit “1823” large cent
​

“1816” “1823” Genuine 1833 N-5 (courtesy PCGS)
​

And as these discussions typically progress another Member shared his example!




This “1824” was worked on in an effort to make it appear genuine and is the most “worn” example we have seen; the “1816” was weathered in the same effort to deceive.

“1816” “1824” Genuine 1833 N-5 (courtesy PCGS)​

Note the star positions and dentils- all match the genuine 1833 N-5 except of course the date. So, like the 1804 C-6 half cent counterfeits an entire “family” is created by changing the date and striking another in the series!

And of course there are a few examples that have passed through the “Dark Side” and the following show the diversity of the counterfeiter’s efforts.

"1827"


"1829"
​

Nothing is sacred, as the counterfeiters tried to up their game with this example!

"1826 off-center"
​

This example was nearly sold for major money at a recent Coin Show; it was prevented by an EAC Dealer who recognized it as a fake. Again it doesn’t match an actual 1826 variety but does match the 1833 N-5 except of course the date.

As I previously stated one of the best ways to protect yourself from this type of fake for sale is to learn the series yourself. Buy the reference books, join a discussion group or club focused on your interests (such as Early American Coppers/ “EAC”) and ask other experienced members and friends. And review similar items on the internet- major auction house's sales archives and NGC's and PCGS's variety pages are great on-line resources.

And as always, the research and summary articles continue to be a collaborative effort with many EAC members and “Dark Side” friends participating and contributing!

Best- Jack D. Young EAC 5050

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thanks for posting this. Another excellent write up!

 

I hate to even admit this but I would most likely fall for these fakes in a heartbeat, especially in the heat of the moment. They do, however, look "too good" - especially the off center strike. But the "worn" one - that's a tough call.

 

Your write ups are always excellent. And they make me glad that I have reduced my coin buying considerably. I would need to really really really educate myself before attempting to pour serious money into this hobby.

 

Thanks Jack.

 

Scary. A couple could have fooled me especially the 1816 and 29

 

As a point of reference on a time frame for these I found a 2010 note in the EAC internet newsletter (“R8”) which discussed the use of 1833 N5.

“The original from which these transfer dies (without date) were made is an 1833 N5. Beginning 2008 or before, the Chinese have been exporting better-and-better counterfeits of US coins of all types. So far the Chinese large cents I have seen have been rather unsophisticated, but I expect their newer products to become more and more deceptive. On their current Matron Head products, the date is hand-cut and does not "look right." The host coin used to produce these dies is an XF 33-5 (small-letter reverse). I have seen these in grades from F through red "MS," and as every date from 1815 thru 1839, always with the old pre-1836 broad-bust head style. Another fake-family has a low-relief head and large-letter reverse. Some are stamped "COPY" or "REPLICA" but many are **NOT** so marked. The Chinese are making EVERY date of US large cent from 1793 through 1857 -- often with the wrong head-style or letter-size.”

So, there appears to be a continuation of "improvement" and sophistication in the efforts to infuse our hobby with better and better fakes, requiring more knowledge and diligence on our part…

 

Here’s a side-by-side comparison of a fake and genuine 1833 N-5. Note the crispness of the stars, and the edge looks like it was struck with modern machines.



Also note the difference in head style, namely in the hair. This style was used from 1820 to 1826.

 

Not knowing these coins, I would assume that the fake coin is on the left and the genuine coin is on the right. Is that correct? As we normally read left to right, and you stated "Here’s a side-by-side comparison of a fake and genuine ...", leads me to believe the fake is on the left.

 

Nope. Other way around

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

Interesting there appears to be an edge disturbance in the same area as on the 1816, 1823 and 1829 fakes.

 

This is the part of the research I enjoy- armed with a time-frame and images of the fakes I was able to find the following from a 2007 auction.

 

Jack, would you happen to have an image of the back of the ANACS slab? That was about the right time frame for the first of the fake ANACS slabs and the key identifying feature was on the back hologram. (All the fake slabs were on the white "problem coin" slabs.)

The scary thing about this is it tells us they have been making these fakes that would get past a lot of collectors and most likely dealers, for 12 years. How many are out there?

 

Fortunately, the 1833 N-5 family was never supposed to be the hyper-fakes that get by the TPGs. Just like the 1818 B-10 quarters (shown below). The Chinese have been employing the die-transfer technique from genuine coins for over a decade. It wasn’t until relatively recently (4-5 years ago) that the hyper-fakes started showing up.

 

Actually we have tracked 2 of the source coins for the "hyper-fakes" to 2008, so the 1833 N-5 family predates these by just a year.
The reverse image of the ANACS slab per Conder101's request (courtesy HA):

 

Are you Chinese? Right to left?

 

Judging from my collection, probably

 

Images of the obverse show a "chip" at the bust in the three:

 

Very interesting write up! It seems as though I remember these coins being brought up during the EAC course at the ANA summer program a number of years ago. Prior to taking that class, I would have fallen victim to most of these. It’s been a long time since I actually sat to study EAC. I think it is really cool and useful to have a refresher. Thank you for taking the time to share.