Attribute This

Same thought as when these first hit in the fall of 2015 Marshall; the 1st one noticed was purchased in a TPG slab as a possible new variety paired with an interim S-158 reverse. The coin showed no indication of tooling since it was struck from dies made from a genuine one that was either tooled or the dies were. When we quickly started finding more with the same "tooling" and circulation marks we knew we were looking at counterfeits.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

This one was on eBay and I suspect a counterfeit. The dealer is honorable and is sending it to a TPG for certification before completing the sale to the winning bidder (not me) after I notified him of my suspicion.

What do you think?

 

Why the suspicion on this one?

 

I was immediately suspicious with the lower locks of hair not appearing to be consistent Hair on the S-30/S-31. The lack of an upper pole between the hair and cap appeared to confirm that something wasn't quite right. On the reverse, the extra large knot appeared shaped more like the S-33 than the S-31.

While none of these appeared sufficient on their own to provide sufficient proof of being counterfeit, the combination made me suspicious.

After more thought, I have considered a combination of circumstances which might explain the discrepancies better. The hair and pole differences might be from polish or grease on the obverse die while the reverse might simply be in a different state of wear than the comps I use.

But at this point, I'm not persuaded either direction, but am left with suspicion only.

This is an unfortunate byproduct of knowing counterfeits are out there and of my own inability to identify them.

I'm left only with impressions of something not quite being right based on familiarity with comps.

 

You guys are incredible; knowledge sponges

 

The corrosion and damage also tend to distort details as well. Here's an image of my low grade/ clipped planchet example:

 

I think that explains the reverse and possibly the lowest curls. But the absence of the upper pole with strong hairline and cap can only be explained by grease or polish on the die in my opinion. That is becoming a little more likely than a counterfeit however unless others begin to show up with the same problems at the same locations.

The pole on your "low" grade example shows a clear upper pole.

 

Would be better to have it in hand; I have seen lighting and just bad images hide details. I can almost convince myself there is something of the pole in the image...

 

It's definitely a case where a look in the copper would help. But one by one, the things that made me suspicious seem to have alternative explanations to being counterfeit.

 

I think the feature behind the hair suggests either authenticity or a die made from an authentic obverse in a later die state. But I'm not sure which.

I've drawn arrows to the feature I'm looking at. You may have to enlarge the images to see them.

 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1794-LARGE...584293?hash=item287307d265:g:ePMAAOSwAE9b04v~

What is going on with the date here? Crude alteration?

 

That's what it looks like to me. It could be a fallen 4 (S-63) variety, but I think it's been enhanced by engraving at best. I just consider it unattributable.

 

stupidly crude engraving

 

In hand or with better pictures it might be attributable. With just a quick flip through the book I can narrow it down to one of ten varieties (and yes S-63 is one of them) With more work could probably narrow it down further.

 

Marshall, thought I would post one for you. Hope you are doing well.

 

I'm doing well, but I've run out of money to acquire new coins to post. This is an intriguing example that would seem to be easily attributed, yet I can't settle on an attribution. Because of the wear and damage, I may be excluding some varieties I should not exclude.

It appears from the L and E that this uses type two lettering which excludes all the 1797s except one obverse. But the "7" is too distant for that obverse. I only looked at the 97s because of what appeared to potentially be a point of a seven and the couched E which is most commonly (though not exclusively) found on 97s.

I have therefore excluded 97s.

Now the more probable 98s are a bit problematic. It still has a couched E though the top of the hair is away from and left of the upright of the E. The "8" is away from the bust, and the 1 and 7 are apart, rather than close. The 1 is away from and between dentils. The seven is damaged but appears to be just right of the dentil below.

I'm off to Church so I'll be back later with observations on the Reverse.

 

After reviewing this more closely and particularly looking at reverse features (leaf points at middle D and middle M and fraction/denominator positions) along with obverse letter positions relative to the HWH and SHWH, I've settled on the S-152 as the attribution with a fairly high level of confidence.

 

Thanks for your attribution. I agree as well.

 

I just completed a new set of photos of the S-39 I obtained last September and have included edge shots this time.

 

Here is my S-73 I got about a month earlier. I didn't realize I hadn't posted it yet.