Featured Low Grade 1793 Large Cent? Authentication versus attribution...

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by Jack D. Young, Jul 18, 2020.

  1. Jack D. Young

    Jack D. Young Well-Known Member

    A friend posted this apparent 1793 chain cent in another forum and asked if it were genuine; was looking to send it out for certification.

    combo-gilbert.jpg
    The 1st step I always quickly take in authentication is to try and attribute it as to the genuine variety- if I can't that is a 1st clue something is probably wrong. In this case this example is certainly "trying to be a 1793 S-2" but there are differences I couldn't get past.

    The obverse resembles the S-2 obverse; the neck truncation is curved, not straight, and there is a lock of hair pointing straight at the 1 in the date like S-2.

    Obv_S-2.jpg
    The reverse is close too, especially the position of the lettering and chains but I couldn't get past the chain link "thicknesses/ openings" and couldn't explain these just due to the obvious wear.

    rev_S-2.jpg
    And then there is of course the "other side", the edge. A genuine chain cent edge should look like the left image of the "vine and bars" edges of the early 1793 varieties.

    edges.jpg

    The next steps I take are trying to find matching examples "out there", and with the help of a few friends we find these fine specimens from China. The 1st is a heavy/ thick planchet version with the date further from the edge, and a thin version with the date closer like the subject example.

    Thick.jpg
    thin.jpg
    And both have the same thicknesses/ openings in the chain links I couldn't get past with the subject example.

    Randy-comp-r.jpg
    Untitled-obv-comp.jpg
    So, just another Chinese counterfeit artificially weathered in an effort to be a $2K+ "genuine" example...

    Best, Jack.
     
    Dynoking, tmeyer, Chris B and 15 others like this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. furryfrog02

    furryfrog02 Well-Known Member

    I'm no expert but I wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot pole.
     
    Jack D. Young likes this.
  4. ksparrow

    ksparrow Coin Hoarder

    Nice analysis, thanks for posting.
     
    Jack D. Young likes this.
  5. TypeCoin971793

    TypeCoin971793 Just a random guy on the internet

  6. Dave Waterstraat

    Dave Waterstraat dave700x -1883 O nut

    Great work once again!
     
    Jack D. Young likes this.
  7. Jack D. Young

    Jack D. Young Well-Known Member

  8. Michael K

    Michael K Well-Known Member

    Of course not being an expert, I couldn't tell.
    However, it did appear to have fake aging/weathering/circulation wear.
    Look how the scratches go one way and then the other, as if they were put on at the same time which they were. And I didn't like the color.
    A coin that old and that worn would not have a prominent date. So even without
    Jacks spot on analysis, I would be over 90% fake on this.
     
    Jack D. Young likes this.
  9. TypeCoin971793

    TypeCoin971793 Just a random guy on the internet

    I reject your reality and substitute my own.

    6CCD2444-95FA-406E-8344-9E9FB7888A0A.jpeg
     
  10. Michael K

    Michael K Well-Known Member

    Your date isn't as prominent as the date on the OP coin.
    Being legible and being prominent are not the same.
    Of course my statement is not an absolute, but a generality.
     
  11. TypeCoin971793

    TypeCoin971793 Just a random guy on the internet

    You are deluding yourself
     
  12. TypeCoin971793

    TypeCoin971793 Just a random guy on the internet

  13. Jack D. Young

    Jack D. Young Well-Known Member

    I don't understand why you make comments like this- I am not interested in a conflict on this post, just a civil conversation about the "coin" posted...
     
  14. TypeCoin971793

    TypeCoin971793 Just a random guy on the internet

    Frustration, as I have explained via PM. I won’t explain in greater depth here to avoid further bickering
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page