Morgan - Struck thru or post mint?

What do you think?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Looks like a post mint chop mark.

 

What year is it? The coin looks off to me, it seems to have porous surfaces, which is a characteristic of a counterfeit, but also of rusted dies, which are common for certain years. But the second A in America, the star between Dollar and America, and the E in United also look "off" to me. Is it possible to post pics of the obverse?

 

Here's a few more pics:

 

That coin is fake...I hope it is not from the same source as the 1921 Peace dollar you posted earlier.

 

Hi,
I played with the image of that "struck through" appearing thing. I can't make them out but there appears to be some remnants of lettering in the bar. It probably said replica or something of that sort.

 

I agree with foundinrolls. I missed that big hit on the bottom of the eagle's left wing the first time I looked. With that, plus the severity of "bumps", or pitting on the reverse (It doesn't match the pitting attributed in the VAMs for that year), and the letter/star problems, imo it's a counterfeit.

I also agree with foundinrolls about possible struck through. My guess is someone got a hold of a legitimate replica die, and decided to remove the copy sign, because it seems like the coin was struck with that gouge already in the die, same goes for the scrape on the left wing.

 

WOW! This coin is from a friends collection that was put together between 1920-1940. He inherited the collection during the 1970's and just put it away as he is not a collector. I've been going through it for him. The coins I've been posting recently are not from ebay or anything, these are real-deal, old-school collection coins.

 

Wow, look at the fields closely. It is too damaged looking almost like a counterfeit gone wrong. I say it's a fake coin IMO.

 

Cast counterfeit.

Bubbly surfaces, extra flat relief, mushy details...

 

wow, an error fake.

unusual and rare.

[J/K]

 

That;s a fake allright and post mint damage
john

 

Pretty good looking fake if you look at the full obverse and full reverse posted.

 

It's not at all a good looking fake . That's why it took only seconds to identify it as such.

Thanks,
Bill
PS: These have been counterfeited for as long as they've existed.

 

It was good enough to fool me, but I'm no Morgan expert. The thing that's interesting is that this is a very old counterfeit.

 

It took me a third look to say it was a fake.Good counterfeit cast coin.

 

Which picture was the one you used to ID it as a fake?

 

Hi Rockdude,

The first one and then each one added to my conclusion.

Thanks,
Bill

 

Wow, I've got a lot to learn.

 

You could see a lack of any kind of surface luster, that doesn't always mean shine. A coin with that much detail should still have some amount of flow to the metal. The flow lines, if you will, can be dirty and show some wear but even on a fairly worn coin, you can see that the surface has a normal flow to it.

The surface of this coin looks dull and grainy as though it was sandblasted.

That was the first giveaway. Everything else in the closeups confirmed my suspicions.