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

Jack too

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Mostly. Thanks mr. Jack

 

I hate thieves. Well dislike bunches

 

I'll still buy one at a yard sale

 

Dude. XRF. Slow down. What is this XRF. I'm trying to get all of this

 

Extra fine focus?

 

He was stunned on the phone when I called him, but the advantage of having it in a TPG holder in my opinion is the guarantee, and the TPG handled it very professionally and to my friend's satisfaction.

 

XRF (X-ray fluorescence) is a non-destructive analytical technique used to determine the elemental composition of materials. XRF analyzers determine the chemistry of a sample by measuring the fluorescent (or secondary) X-ray emitted from a sample when it is excited by a primary X-ray source. Each of the elements present in a sample produces a set of characteristic fluorescent X-rays ("a fingerprint") that is unique for that specific element, which is why XRF spectroscopy is an excellent technology for qualitative and quantitative analysis of material composition.

 

I used two lines on the Obverse and Reverse for the purpose of verification. I will say the images provided appear to be taken @ an angle tilted away from the camera lens - which would skew the results. Assuming the coins were flipped squarely it appears the orientation of the obverse die and reverse die between the two coins are different by approximately 5 degrees. Which leads to the conclusion that die orientation may not be a consistent marker for EAC.

This same technique can be used for analyzing individual obverse and reverse designs. Being the positioning of design elements relative to other elements remain static for each die.

Results are posted below.

 

Great analysis, although assumptions must be made for possible camera angles, etc. The owner feels these are the same orientation; one thing does appear possible, the clones are oriented in the opposite direction of the genuine pieces...

 

Based on the imaging as presented - I will have to disagree with that.

 

OK; I was having trouble thinking upside-down (obv to rev), as you are showing the last 2 genuine examples to be rotated on the obv relative to the 3 other examples.

If you rotate the obs of these last 2 9+degrees where do the reverses end up relative to the 1st three?

 

I did comment on XRF on your other post. One quick way is 200 year old copper of this sort MUST have signatures of chlorine and sulfur on the surface. Particularly sulfur >0.1%. In many cases >1%. But its expensive $75/coin generally. In the interim keep looking closely for raised metal dot sized areas and rim edges not appearing as 200 years old if in raw form. JPL

 

Received images of the de-slabbed example from the TPG; I wonder how many would have picked this out as a fake?

 

Colonialjohn, posted: "One quick way is 200 year old copper of this sort MUST have signatures of chlorine and sulfur on the surface. Particularly sulfur >0.1%. In many cases >1%.

WHY IS THAT?

In the interim keep looking closely for raised metal dot sized areas and rim edges not appearing as 200 years old if in raw form."

FROM WHAT?

 

I am not an EAC guy by any stretch. But I just happen to have a rendering of what I believe to be S-5. Overlaid it on the counterfeit. I circled some additional features which may or may not be issues with the counterfeit.

1. Obverse - nostril on the nose doesn't appear to follow the same arc as my source coin. Arc on counterfeit traced in cyan - source coin coral.

2. Obverse - the mouth on the counterfeit appears to extend further into the face than it does on my source coin. Mouth on counterfeit traced in cyan - source coin coral.

I believe this is an area on the counterfeit source coin that exhibited extreme damage and was repaired.

3. Obverse - my source coin exhibits a strong dot in the center of the design - the counterfeit does not.

4. Reverse - my source coin exhibits a broken crossbar in the first "A" of America - The counterfeit coin appears to have a full crossbar.

My overlay shows how good and deceptive this counterfeit is. Even the dots around the rim appear properly spaced.

I don't think this coin was struck by a transfer die produced in a manner we traditionally think of such a die being produced.

 

Thanks Jack

Do the S-5 and S-6 share a common reverse die?

 

Yes, reverse "F"- S-5, S-6 and S-7.

Best, Jack.