Is this 1884 CC Morgan a Fake?

Hello, CT Folks!
Hope everyone is having a good weekend! So, I picked up this "1884 CC Morgan" a few weeks ago at a coin show. This is my first CC that I got at what I thought was a fair price. The seller said it has a few edge bumps, but I didn't care much because I just wanted to add it to my collection.
I cannot go into detail now, but I am wondering if anyone could tell if this is a fake or not? I used a 1896 P coin, just to compare the sides and the edge bumps in the pictures.
I hope the pictures are good enough for your observations, if not, I'll try to post more when I get back.
I'll be back in a day or so, to see what y'all think.
I appreciate your help in advance! Thank you!
Cheers!
quick_change

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Edge thickness varies on coins - not much value for authentication unless WAY off and then the coins are crude anyway. Weigh the coin and take a magnified photo of date and CC.

 

Can you get a closer shot of the coin without the other photos so the resolution is greater and I can zoom in on the date? Easiest things to check are weights and dates. And please, please, please, don't take any more photos showing you touching the face of the coin with your fingers!

 

Even if you're not taking pictures, don't put your fingers on the faces of the coin. Always handle your coins only by their edges.

 

Hello Folks!
My apologies for holding the face!
I took a few more pics, but this is the best my camera can do. Hopefully this is a better quality. And, the weight was 26.7 grams.
Thanks again!!
quick_change

 

And, here are the solo shots.

 

Well, those ain't terrible.

Here's why I'm completely confident in its' originality:



Circled in red is a little tail to the bottom left of the 8. This is a known attribution pickup of the VAM-4 variety for the year. Circled in blue are clashing artifacts, known for this variety and very unlikely to show up on a counterfeit.

Best yet:



In the center of the red circle you'll see a tiny bright white line running northwest-southeast on the coin. You wouldn't notice it unless you were looking specifically for it. This is the "Pinned Wing" die gouge noted for VAM-4A, not only a killer pickup for identifying the subvariety but also pretty near impossible to create on a counterfeit. It wouldn't survive a transferred-die process.

So it's - to my mind - conclusively real. However, it's also dinged up and cleaned/polished, both of which would detract greatly from the retail value.

 

Interesting! Close, but no cigar. Here's a link to what's being talked about by SuperDave, and it's close but not close enough. The "Pinned Wing" is not good enough in my opinion, and liberty's lips are all wrong on the OP's coin, better close up of the lips quick_change, please. Plus, the 8 looks really good but the 1 don't. Excellent fake, best one I've ever seen.

http://www.vamworld.com/1884-CC VAM-4A

 

Thank you SuperDave! That was very informative, and I appreciate your feedback!

 

Hello CT!
Well, I'm back and wanted to share why I thought this was a fake. I took the coin to 3 different coin shops, and here are the results. The 1st coin dealer told me it was a fake! They even used an Alloy Spec., with the same metals listed below, only difference is that the Silver was tested at 85%, however, I have a feeling "Mr. X," may have manipulated the test. This is when I decided to share it with you all, to get a better opinion. The 2nd coin shop told me it was 90% Silver and real! They also used an Alloy Spec. (not sure what type), to test it. The 3rd coin shop told me it was real, and using an Alloy Spectrometer, here are the final findings and following metals inside of this coin.
Au: 2.53
Ag: 92.74
Cu: 3.28
Zn: .747

2 out of 3 coin shops tell me it's real! And, I am curious as to why there are trace amounts of Gold. The guys that helped test this coin, even wiped down another Morgan coin with a gold rag, and checked the alloys, to see if that would leave mineral deposits on the coin, but not a trace of Au was found. They were baffled as well.
I appreciate those who tried to help me identify the legitimacy of this coin. I am still not sure if it's a fake or not, but so far I am at least 92.74% positive, that this coin is the real deal.
Thanks, CT!

 

Yep, SuperDave wins again, good for you!! I salute you sir, it was real after all!!

 

Silver is frequently found together with gold. The < 1% zinc doesn't bother me, but the 3% copper is way off. Something doesn't seem right to me.

 

Thank you Paul M., and I agree! To be honest, I'm still learning more about this and other Morgan Dollar's than ever before, as my quest continues.. During my search I've seen other Mogans tested and there were only 2 metals detected (Ag-90% and Cu-10%), if I recall correctly.
I tried looking around online, and never found anything regarding the Au, so that's what's getting me. SuperDave pointed out the VAM-4A, which are the most distinguishing marks I noticed, and a few other coin experts noticed as well. It's also help me come to the conclusion that it's not a fake.
Overall, It's been fun tryin to figure this all out, so I cannot complain, as I have learned a lot!
Paul, do you have any idea why there would be such a low Cu amount?
Thanks !
quick_change

 

Thanks for your help too, fretboard! It's been fun, but it the quest continues

 

It's Edge thickness measured in at 2.8 firm, on the coin gauge. Width was normal too.

 

I learned long ago that when I disagree with @SuperDave I must first question myself

 

NEVER...question ?? Super Dave.

 

I'm not saying that and he'll be the first to tell you to question EVERYTHING. It's just that when I find myself questioning him as a reflex, I usually find him to be correct.

 

Looks like pocket change...got mad and threw it!

 

I'm not sure of it any longer, after hearing the alloy composition. Then again, handheld XRF isn't the "Holy Grail" of definitive accuracy.

Do me a favor? Image the obverse nice and square, like you did the reverse. I overlaid a known 4A onto your reverse and it was exact, but the obverse image, having been shot at an angle, is distorted and spatial relationships won't line up correctly. If I force it back to round, they won't recover accurately either.

This was a fundamental error in fretboard's analysis - macro images on an angle distort perspective and apparent feature size, and it's problematic to draw conclusions about features in a tilted pic as a result.

He still may be right, though. Just not necessarily for the reasons he thought.