Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Jack D. Young, post: 8278568, member: 93371"]As I continue to try to document the "family" of counterfeits currently available on the market, both as copies and as authentic examples, I realize how difficult this is as the counterfeits continue to evolve... I have articles on Coin Week about 2 different bust dollars, fake turban head and middle date large cents and early and middle date half cents- 6 total to date. I call these intermediate deceptive fakes, good enough to fool many collectors not fully engaged on a specific series; struck from dies created from genuine examples and then struck with different dates to create the "family". They are "die linked" to the original and each other in all features except the date, which results in non-existent die varieties for the various dates except the original. So, I continue to say when examining raw coins offered for sale on the internet (which never lies...) always start with attributing it! The latest group of "families" I am working on are the later date large cents seen for sale in practically all internet selling venues. I am going to start this "rant" with three different examples and review what is wrong with them before moving forward... These three were all submitted to TPGs for certification; in all cases the TPG called them counterfeits! [ATTACH=full]1461862[/ATTACH] 1857 small date counterfeit- image courtesy NGC [ATTACH=full]1461863[/ATTACH] 1840 dated counterfeit- image courtesy NGC [ATTACH=full]1461864[/ATTACH] 1857 large date counterfeit- image courtesy PCGS So, what are the pick-up points for these and are they of the same family? Just for fun I will throw my counterfeit 1857 large date into the mix! [ATTACH=full]1461865[/ATTACH] Correct Attribution! So, starting with attribution we can say neither of the large date '57's are genuine! The imaged example in the center is genuine (image courtesy PCGS CoinFacts): [ATTACH=full]1461866[/ATTACH] Date position relative to the bust and hair curls rule both end "coins" out. And there do not appear to be any repeating marks between them (hold that thought...).                                                                                                                                             Now, what about the small date 1857? Well, not so good for it either (coin in the center genuine courtesy PCGS CoinFacts as well); I also threw in the 1840 example for comparison: [ATTACH=full]1461868[/ATTACH] Again date position is off for the wannabe 1857. But there are some interesting similarities between the bad '57 small date, 1840, and one of the bad '57 large dates. Comparing the three of those highlights the common features which shouldn't be for three so different "varieties"... [ATTACH=full]1461869[/ATTACH] Comparison Obverses- "crescent chip" smoothed over on the 1840 example [ATTACH=full]1461870[/ATTACH] Comparison reverses- common marks include the rim defect left lower border, a "divot" in the "E" of CENT (which diminishes in later strikings of the fakes) and a dent in the leaf under the "T" of CENT. [ATTACH=full]1461873[/ATTACH] And we find various dates of this "family" of counterfeits in many various internet selling venues; some folks I know have put together an interesting date set of these. A couple of others of the "crescent chip obverse/ divot E reverse: [ATTACH=full]1461874[/ATTACH] So, I reached the limit of images allowed and will continue under comments<img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie8" alt=":D" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />...[/QUOTE]

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches