Batteries died in my camera so used my phone, sorry for the poor photos. Picked this up the other day. It test for gold with acid and the metal verifier but is not a genuine coin. I'll pick up some batteries later to try to take better photos.
One of my favorite ways to evaluate authenticity of a coin is to find the area of weakest detail, and then find known-good examples with similar wear and/or strike weakness. Then you compare the rest of the subject coin to those examples, to see if the wear/strike weakness pattern over the rest of the coin is close. This doesn't work in all cases but it's a pretty good indicator in the cases where it does.
I didn't even bother looking at the mintmark, but you're right. This is one of the well-known "Fantasy" counterfeits.
I believe the coin may actually be one of the "monetary" counterfeits that were created in Lebanon during the 1950s. They were "minting" US, British and French coins.
Y'all are being kind of vague.... Besides the mintmark, what else is pointing to this as being fake? This is a series I'm less familiar with, so explain what you're seeing.
Yeah, one has about the same level of security buying incused gold Indians raw as they do trade dollars. I've owned several of these over the years and am still not comfortable buying them raw. Doesn't help that grading them can be a real nuisance as well. Here is the obverse of the OP's coin pitted against one of an authentic example. The most obvious thing that pops out to me is the date. The nine seems ok on the counterfeit version save maybe the height. But both of the number ones and the number three are problematic. - The three is the most obvious, look at the bottom curvature and compare it to the authentic example--it looks like it was drawn by a first grader. - The second one is far too straight, there should be some degree of curvature on both long sides of the one, resembling a concave lens. - The first one looks correct at its top half, but it straightens out as it goes toward the edge. If given a higher resolution photo from the OP, I'd imagine we'd see problems with the "B.L.P." as well, particularly with the "B." The "I" in LIBERTY exhibits the same issues as the number ones in the date. The star closest to the three isn't even complete! I agree with @ToughCOINS that something is a-brewing in the neck area. I don't typically deal in lower grade examples, but the patina seems off. I'm not digging that darker outline that surrounds the chief, and there are bursts of bright gold color in the headdress (possibly putty job). The star closest to the "Y" in LIBERTY definitely looks puttied to me, as does the fourth star on that side. The touch ups don't make it a counterfeit, as I'm sure you know that this series has authentic examples that are altered to hide rub, but they certainly seem incriminating with all the other issues.
Hopefully better photos. I bought four at the same time and didn't pay that much attention till I got home. The dealer I bought them from is going to replace it. This is a perfect example though of dealers using only the metal verifier and not paying attention to the coin.
Along with their smaller sister, the $2 1/2 Indian, these can be very deceptive. I have had a few that exceeded US Mint quality
It's also a good example of a counterfeit struck in the original precious metal, which is counterintuitive for some. This could have been struck/cast from stolen gold, and fenced through the safest-possible method (for those not governed by US law). 100% profit.
In the '50's and '60's, many, many of these were stuck in Lebanon of good gold then imported into the US to circumvent the ban on owning modern gold. We always jokingly referred to them as "B" mint coins such as a 1913 B for Beirut.