Continuing on a Theme- Struck Counterfeit 1793 "S-5" Large Cent

This "variety" was included in my previous article on damaged and repaired source coins and the counterfeits struck from the resulting dies.

The significance of the date and the higher grade details caused quite a stir when it was "discovered" among experts- both collectors, dealers and TPG's.

After posting results on our FB page "Dark Side" and the discussions that ensued I found myself the bearer of bad news to a fellow EAC member and friend that the example he had recently purchased for over $14K (in a TPG slab) was one of the fakes as well. The silver lining for him was the TPG's guarantee of authenticity, and the "coin" was bought back- I then had the opportunity to review it at the next EAC Convention and it became more apparent "in-hand" what it actually is...

My research article documenting this one for those interested can be found at Coin Week: https://coinweek.com/counterfeits/c...793-s-5-wreath-cent-1-page-attribution-guide/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Any thoughts or discussion?

 

On EAC coinage - once the dies are setup and locked into the coining press - how consistent is the orientation (rotation) of the obverse to reverse throughout production of coinage for that die pair? Does it remain virtually static or randomly change during coin production? And if it does change - is it a consistent change through die states or just a totally random change from coin to coin?

 

It depends upon the coin some varieties are not known to have rotated reverses, other varieties frequently have them. If they do have them, on some varieties they come with a specific set amount of rotation, on others the variety is known with certain specific rotations, and on some others most notably S-276 the reverse is known to have rotations all the way around the coin. But even that one mainly comes with just four or five set rotations.

 

Collectors actually try to collect rotations around the clock positions on the one Conder101 cited! The 1796 S-90 is famous for it's final die state that is typically in full medal turn.

 

Sorry I wasn't very clear in my first post. I was thinking not only does a counterfeiter have to produce an obverse die and reverse die that transfer the correct design to a coin. Those dies would have to be setup to produce a counterfeit coin with the same orientation obverse to reverse as a real example. If this feature of a coin remains relatively static throughout the production of coinage for a die pair.

It can be easily verified by drawing a straight line between two design elements on the obverse and reverse and comparing the angle at which these two lines intersect.

 

Interesting point justafarmer; I have added images of the source coin and two struck clones to show the orientations of each...

 

You can get better results if done on a scanner as opposed to imaging with a camera. With a scanner you can use the square edges of the slab or 2 x 2 flip to insure the target coins are flipped squarely (obverse to reverse). Aspects such as luster, color and etc are really not a concern as it is the coin design and the location and orientation of these elements relative to each other.

Looking at the images of the 2nd coin you provided - I can tell they were not taken squarely to the camera. The slabs in which the coins are encased form a trapezoid instead of a rectangle. Also the reverse is a larger image than the obverse. Both are factors that skew the angle in which the lines intersect. You needn't worry whether a coin is placed in a slab or 2 x 2 flip with the design perfectly vertical. Any rotation of a coin in the flip/slab will be identical for both the obverse and reverse. Although the lines drawn may be rotated - the two lines will still intersect at the same angle.

Following are images of the coins you provided as illustration.

 

Thanks! I only have the images from others for reference and oriented them side by side using the slabs as reference. Your imaging is awesome from what I provided you. Based on your work what would you state about the coin orientation of the source (darker PCGS example) relative to the 2 struck clones?

 

As stated in my previous post - there is really nothing definitive I can say due to the unknowns associated with the imaging of the coins. I feel it would be safe to say that the setup (orientation) of the die pair striking the clones is not the same as that which struck the source coin.

 

Agreed; thanks.
I have some friends who are expert on 1793 large cents and will ask their thoughts. Thanks again for your help!

 

After reading "Numismatic Forgery" by Charles Larson and hearing about more and more examples of forgeries of extremely valuable coins getting slabbed and sold, I don't think I'm ever going to buy another coin. It's very demoralizing. The counterfeiters are eating their host and biting the hand that feeds. It can't end well. I actually haven't bought anything for a while now and I'm having trouble getting the passion back.

The work above is fantastic, fascinating, well written and very necessary, but it simultaneously deflates my excitement for the hobby. I would rather know than not know, honestly, so I really appreciate the research and articles. But ouch!

 

I understand the concern; probably more than ever knowledge is so important to persuing the hobby (in my opinion) which is the main reason I have tried to reach so many with this research. I just recently had a struck fake early half cent certified "genuine" and slabbed by a TPG- I then sent a note explaining the issues and agreed to resubmit it for an "upper level review" and it is now body-bagged as "Not Genuine"...

 

"justafarmer", one of my fellow EAC members sent me this image of two of his genuine S-5's to show their die oreintation.

 

Interesting with these pieces using die rotation as an anti-counterfeiting method. Jack Young you could also use XRF. Possibly. These early 1793 Cents probably have high sulfur and chlorides and a specific set of XRF impurities as compared to modern copper. XRF assay just being ANOTHER tool to use and of course not a sole source to accept or kill a piece as a modern forgery. You could use SEM micrographs but the numismatic world is not there yet ... not for another 50 years.

John Lorenzo

 

Good points John; I am actually using XRF as I can. On the 1805 "half cent" it showed primarily copper with traces of zinc, nickel and iron- need a reference sample of a genuine period example for comparison but I have been told this combination is interesting.

On an odd uniface/ half of an early large cent (appears to be half of an electro) the copper had a measureable amount of iridium in it, which I have been told is commonly found in Chinese copper ore...

And there are those who speculate the counterfeiters are buying cull large cents to use as planchetts, which would possibly make XRF comparisons useless.

In the case of one of the examples from this post (coin #1) the edge was imprinted properly, but the details were visibly crushed.

 

Very interesting discussion!

 

Where was the mistake on this 14,000 coin that broke this members heart. Lets face it. He must of been devastated

 

Wow. You said a mouth full. Super question. Thats a Steve Hawking question

 

I wanna hang and have a drink with you. Can see me with hand on chin listening