Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by Marshall, Feb 22, 2018.
Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.
On my first post, I showed the coin and noted the reverse was different from the one currently offered by the manufacturer which uses another impossible combination.
But the obverse die is identifiable as a fake and I'm sure a little more investigation at the manufacturers websight would locate the reverse die used on the "weathered" fake.
The story is probably just that. A cover story, though it's possible he stumbled across a site where the modern counterfeits were being weathered to add an authentic look. But his choice to leave the posting on eBay after being informed makes his credibility suspect.
I don't know a lot about many coins, but I do know a lot about early date Large Cents and their varieties.
Conder is my go to person when I have questions and Typecoins and Eduard are becoming a great resources as well.
I certainly understand the desire to find treasure, but we must always be vigilant to report fakes in order to protect the hobby from the unscrupulous.
If you'd like to know more about attributing Large Cents, you can look in the "Attribute This" thread in the US COINS Forum. You can see the detail in which specialists have gone to identify legitimate varieties and markers which would help distinguish between legitimate newly found varieties and modern fakes.
If you run across an Early Large Cent and need help verifying a variety and thus authenticity, I'm always willing to assist.
Thank you for your often thankless efforts.
OK! Technically this is a Reverse side of a "coin" struck by the same die used to strike the Reverse of the coin in the OP.
I'm really curious which elements of this you see on the corroded example to be able to match it as this piece type. So little there. I see a tiny patch of leaves at 9 o'clock.
Well let's noodle on this. What type of moisture in a mixed soil base, with maybe a couple of electrodes from a car battery or other DC source COULD make something like this happen? Plus SOME mechanical wearing is needed, such as from a simple rock tumbler. (I happen to have an electronic DC voltage source I got in a bulk auction lot.) I have some copper rounds (chemical match for early copper) I'd be willing to put to the project.
Interesting discussion; for those who looked at the "half cent" I posted from this same seller, here is an "undug" fake version to compare to: https://www.ebay.com/itm/1795-LIBER...=&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557
And comparison images:
The best online comparables I use are are for the most complete collection ever assembled and placed at auction in 2009. The Holmes collection was on several sites and the one I use is http://www.icollector.com/The-Pre-Long-Beach-Sale_as14916
I also heavily supplement it using Heritage Archives. There was about ten years where the descriptions were written by a real EAC expert and there is a wealth of information there.
One thing which you will probably find is that creating a surface level of corrosion after tumbling is quite easy on copper, which is a much more reactive metal than silver or gold. But a quick weathering is usually very shallow and lacks depth which occurs over time.
Never underestimate bad guys and their ingenuity.
Berrys, leaf positions, stems, etc.
Do you think the element of accelerating corrosion with artificially applied voltage is needed, to the best guess you have? Or could extremely quasi-normal micro-level movement of ions do the job? I doubt that scammers have sufficient patience. Also, I'm assuming some salinity is in order, or perhaps some low pH.
My suspicion is that whatever creates the toning/corrosion the fastest is used.
But the old method of doing so was to just place it in the bottom of a potted plant for a season where it was moist and exposed to the soil. It was used to restore cleaned coins.
It's certainly better than the even older method of placing them in your underwear for a month or so when you would finally decide to change them.
But modern counterfeiters are sure to be a bit more sophisticated now.
My recent struck fake 1797 S-136; 4 confirmed examples, mine is the most "weathered".
For diagnostic photos, what is your opinion of the greatly expanded large cent section in "Mega Red" #1?
Wow! They are getting much better. This one would have probably fooled me.
I'm not familiar with that.
Separate names with a comma.