Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 3945044, member: 19463&quot;]Am I reading this correctly that the fakes were made from original modern die engravings rather than poorly transferred copies of genuine original dies just paired inappropriately?&nbsp; My untrained eye does not see any relationship between the fakes and the styles shown in either side of the originals.&nbsp; I also fear that spotting something like this as an anomaly would be more likely with a box of a hundred as opposed to a single specimen which is the way the rest of us see such things.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>I, for one, benefit from hearing not only that a coin is a fake but what was done to produce these results.&nbsp; This post was far better than most we see in this regard.&nbsp; To me the first photos of the fakes appeared poorly struck rather than cast or machine pressed. Yes?&nbsp; Is there a rational explanation for the 20% to 80% range?&nbsp; I don&#039;t see signs of them being overstruck on random old coins but it would seem that is quite a spread for any on the common sources for suck blanks (melting old European coins for example).&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>You frighten me most with the &#039;gut reaction&#039; matter.&nbsp; My, again limited, experience is that I am more likely to talk myself into a fake the longer I think about it and would be better off just walking away&nbsp; when my gut first grumbles.&nbsp; I can walk away and wrong perfectly good coins since I only go public when I am 99% sure of the thing being fake.&nbsp; You and all in the business do not have this luxury.&nbsp; We are, indeed, lucky to have Barry here on CT.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in