Difficult quiz - edges.

Thing thing I first noticed with #1 is how razor sharp and square the edge corner is.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

With #2, what are all the striations and “wood grain” appearance parallel to the reeds? Is that normal?

 

longshot, posted: "Yes my first thought was if we are taking in the whole scope of the last 400+ years of world coins, I haven't much idea. Maybe Insider will narrow it down a bit for us.??"

These are all US coins and only one is genuine. It would not be so difficult if the rest of the coin were posted. Number 5 is a cast counterfeit gold dollar. The "line" around the edge is a seam made by the mold.

 

Photo #4

 

The only thing that bothers me about my original choice, #4, are the vertical "seams" centered on each raised portion of the reeding. Look like incomplete filling of a mold.

I'll switch to #1 and figure it's a proof, although the proportions look to be too small.

If the correct choice is either #2 or 3, no fair using what looks to be a damaged coin.

Z

 

I think 3 looks most real at least on uniformity, followed by 1 as some sort of special minted (distortion and shadowing messes with photo). Curious to see the results.

Some edges look pressed, while some look like they’ve taken on the stamping cuts (shear marks?) from the dies or from production methods.

2 looks filed.
4 the left indent(?) is huge compared to the others.

Quality control and die usage matter. A mint that replaces worn dies earlier may have better edges than an operation on a shoe string budget.

 

#1 Too perfect to be any American coin I’ve ever handled.
#2 looks like a die was used instead of the rolling method used in American coinage
#3 Not recognized by me as any American coin I have ever handled
#4 My pick for genuine American reeding based on my eye memory
#5 I would call this a laughable counterfeiters attempt.

 

I’m not sure if it’s normal, but guessing shear marks. Kinda like a donut cutter pushing down into dough. Straight cut down.

 

We're waiting...

 

I think #2, #3, #5 can be excluded from being genuine, especially #5 with the seam.

Since I’ve never seen (or don’t recognize) the edge pattern of #1, I’m picking #4 which looks like a Morgan Dollar.

 

I think all are genuine except #5.

Steve

 

That was my very close second, for the same reason - a proof

 

#1

 

I'm nervous about #4, because I see what look like numerous pimples or raised dots in the recessed areas. I'm not seeing how that could happen on a real strike. Chips in the collar? Debris deposited after the strike?

 

I'm going to say no to #1 because the "grooves" are completely perpendicular. #2 just looks fishy, like there's some solder on there or something. #5 is such a bad counterfeit that my first thought when I saw it was, "That's a chocolate coin."

I'm down to #3 and #4. #4 looks the most "normal," but the spacing between the ridges is inconsistent. #3 looks a little fishy, but maybe it is just worn/damaged.

 

And now I'm trying to figure out how I overlooked that.

I'm leaning toward 3, I can see it as a coin struck in a heavily worn collar and then getting some impacts from circulation. Looking forward to the reveal.

 

@Insider you remember the magnification level on photos?

 

Can you explain what you mean by "rolling method?"

 

I'm with @Kkm on the inconstant spacing on #4 as well. That was the biggest determining factor for me changing my vote to #1.

 

I am going with worn die / overlapping reeding on coin 3