Raw 1875-cc trade dollar real or fake

Here we have a raw 1875-cc trade. Is it real is it fake reasons why and thoughts on grade I'll post the answer Tuesday night

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Genuine XF details cleaned.

 

Heavens, I honestly don't know (not learned enough in the series) but if I had to make a choice, I'd say it is genuine.

 

I will say this.....the CC mint mark seems rather widely spaced.

 

As they should be... (on most anyway).

I wouldn't lose any sleep over this one, Maine..

 

Not my niche, but something just doesn't seem right on this one. There appears to be a tremendous amount of marks, dings, chatter, and wear around the rim of this coin. I would expect to see more wear to the rest of the devices.My gut tells me to ask someone with a great deal more experience, or just back away.

 

For the record I knew exactly what the coin was when I saw it. After all I do collect trade dollars I'm just asking everyone what their opinions were

 

That struck me too, until I went over to Heritage and looked at slabbed Trade Dollars. I suppose it's because each "C" is punched independently, there's a lot of spacing/position differences? Still, I could not find an exact match to the reverse, and the shapes of those "C"s looks slightly off.

 

I'll say it's fake.
Wrong reverse and the rims look pitted like it was cast.
????

 

Xf45, a little nicked up, but a super deep strike. A touch more luster and 3 less nicks and I'd call it AU50! Nice coin.

 

Xf details?

 

Care to explain?

 

Looks good to me . The Type 1 reverse was used on this year and MM , so the reverse is correct . XF Details .

 

Marinebill has offered a great amount of information about how to spot fake trade dollars on this site.
One of the key PUP he has mentioned many times is the feathers on the eagle's head and neck.
So, I compared the above reverse to the reverse on Coin Facts.
Feathers on Eagle's Neck look wrong to me.

 

Or there could have been more than one type of reverse in 1875.
Live and learn.

 

Fake, because it's ungraded. I would never buy this coin raw.

These trade dollars were made for the Asian market so I presume the Chinese, considering how many fakes these communist con artists produce these days, that this is one of their favorite coins to fake. If I'm wrong, then some Communist Chinese attorney can sue me - LOL

 

They used both Type 1 and Type 2 reverses that year .

 

Apples to apples, my friend... a PUP is worthless unless used properly. Both the obv and rev are correct for the date/mint.

 

Yea, of course the problem is that these days, the Chinese or others probably know this info as well. If this is a fake from say twenty years ago, this info would likely be pertinent, but in today's world of counterfeiting, in my opinion, this info is no longer checkmate against a counterfeiter.

I still believe that authentication must be one day, hopefully soon, taken into the computer age, and the coins somehow scanned for authenticity, and then the human eye could grade them. I would have to believe that the right computer diagnostic scanner could in some way determine if a coin such as this was minted 140 years ago or cast 1 year ago. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

I'm going to say its real - there isn't anything on there that points to fake.

Things I usually look at - 1. The dentilation - you can often spot fakes by looking at the dentils. They are really hard to get right, for some reason. If those pass, then 2. The wheat stalks around the binding rope. A mushy strike from a counterfeit will significantly lack detail here. 3. The surfaces. Look for pimpling from casting, or other unusual marks. If the coin passed the first 2, it is likely that you won't find much here either. 4. The "fabrique" of the coin. Does it "feel" right? Look at the crispness of the strike, the quality of the work, and the overall appearance of the coin. Does it look like a genuine mint product?

This coin passes all those - it is either a *really* high quality fake, or it is a genuine coin.

However, it has been harshly cleaned/polished, and it has seen a decent bit of wear. Thus, I put it at EF Details.