Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by ToughCOINS, May 20, 2019.
Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.
I assume they can do a metal analysis without harming the coin. Is there a tolerance number on the 90/10 content? Perhaps as low as 88/12 would still fall within mint parameters?
When this coin was made (assuming fake) there was no DDR for this year, so it doesn't make sense that it would be made as a rarity. Since there are none and it would be subjected to a great deal of scrutiny (cough, cough) and be discovered as fake.
The 1899 Philly Barber quarter is a common coin. If it was a contemporary counterfeit, there wouldn't be any point to making it out of silver. If it was a modern fake, again, it's not worth making it out of silver. The metal analysis will support or disprove those ideas.
Perhaps this coin was made as a test, before moving on to counterfeit rarer Barber dates. Or perhaps the 1899 fakes are a common counterfeit. Who would have the numbers on that? It wouldn't be the first time the experts have been fooled. However looking at the coin now, it appears a bit more sloppy than better fakes.
If the coin comes back as genuine, how do you explain what happened to the lettering?
The degree of scrutiny it got is puzzling regardless of whether or not there was a usable host coin with such a doubled reverse. The host coin wouldn't be required to be dated 1899, however. Any doubled die reverse without a mint mark could be used. The Barber Coins Collectors Society (BCCS) site does show an 1899 DDR, but this one. It is much weaker. The host coin could have been any date with a Type II reverse, which also happens to be the correct reverse hub for 1899. Of course, the counterfeiters could have gotten lucky with their choice of host coins, and avoided an anachronistic die pairing by accident. By contrast, the Micro O counterfeit family of Morgan dollars has 9 (I think) anachronistic die pairings.
Not necessarily. For a good part of the early 20th century, there was far less than 25c worth of silver in a quarter. Citing the Micro O Morgans again, they are made of Sterling silver, which would have been easily purchased or stolen. Then again, these seemed to be made in sufficient quantities to cover the operation's fixed costs. It is assumed they were made somewhere around 1905-1910.
If a contemporary counterfeit, the date doesn't matter. They were made to spend.
I know he specializes in copper but figured @Jack D. Young would enjoy this thread as well.
I also agree I hope the thread does not get derailed by fighting, I would say categorically that a company guaranteeing authenticity should guarantee authenticity REGARDLESS of whatever variety is put on the label created by whomever. That is meaningless. In the end they took money to guarantee it was authentic, and it sure looks like they failed. Variety attribution is completely irrelevant to that discussion.
Yes there was, something like +/- .002. The bars would be assayed after a melt was poured and those outside a .898 to .902 range would be condemned and remelted. There figures are from Roger Burdette's From Mine to Mint.
Except for some of the trimes, I think all US coin silver is 90/10.
Current silver proofs seem to be .999
I think that part was an accident.
I don’t know, but this DDO/DDR 1910 nickel showed up on UK eBay (unattributed) from a good small-time seller
Agreed. Let’s see what PCGS (or other experts) have to say about this coin.
It is my understanding that the FS example and the subject coin of this thread are the same coin. There being only one example of this variety known.
Separate names with a comma.