Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by ToughCOINS, May 20, 2019.
Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.
And now we have confirmation on the true identity of the troll.
Those in the know have always known, some of us try and have real conversations others push agendas and themselves. The sooner people figure that out that the better
How honest of you to admit your agenda; because it is pretty plain to see.
Bless your heart
Getting back to the authenticity of the coin. What does it weigh?
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.
Great read and glad we are actually back on topic.
I know he specializes in copper but figured @Jack D. Young would enjoy this thread as well.
I agree interesting thread, even for someone like me who hasn't actively collected US coins for a while now.
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.
Sterling silver is 92.5%.
Except for some of the trimes, I think all US coin silver is 90/10.
Current silver proofs seem to be .999
strange read, why counterfeit an unknown DDR?
I don't think that was the intention.
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
I note that not only the motto on the quarter looks crude to my eye (and I've been a numismatist for 57 years now), but also the mismatched obverse stars as well. I don't think all that non-uniformity is attributable to strike weakness. I'm not interested in playing Who Shot John but it's an unfortunate and pretty unbelievable gaffe on the part of supposed authenticators.
Minus the bickering... this is one of the top three threads in the last year IMHO. Congrats ToughCOINS!
Agreed. Let’s see what PCGS (or other experts) have to say about this coin.
Having read all the thread, studied the subject coin, and compared it to the FS example, I too agree the coin is a fake with a genuine attribution from PCGS...an obvious mistake. I wonder what LC Coins has to say about it?
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.