Trade $ 1878 CC, counterfeit or genuine

I bought this coin many years ago, and Wonder if it's genuine.
Weight: 27.20 gram
Diameter: 37.95 m.m
Thickness: 2.8 m.m

Can anybody help mee ?
Thank's from Norway

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm not that good at Trade Dollars. It looks real to me but I'd also add that it has been harshly cleaned.

 

Here's an image from PCGS and the mint mark on the OP coin isn't even close .

Could just be a different die then the OP coin .

 

Tank you for your answer

 

Maine Bill will hopefully see this post and respond. My first impression is also that it looks real, but see many hairlines from cleaning. kMANN, I have PMed you (sent a personal message).
Steve

 

Looks good at 1st glance , but I haven't check the die marriages . I have to go out will check later . It's a correct Type II/II for the date now if the MM checks out it should be fine .

 

The more important question is: Why do people insist on buying raw trade dollars, or even considering them, if they don't know the series? They have an astronomical counterfeit rate, and if not counterfeit, are almost always cleaned. They are not cheap coins, so why take the risk???????

 

In Europa almost all coins are sold unslapped. No I have learned that is othervice in the US

 

Need close-up of the 420 Grains area and rim over "States". I have never seen those raised marks on a genuine piece.

For now, IMO C/F harshly cleaned!

PS I do know the series. We do not rely on the placement of the mint mark as it varies.

 

Here are what you are asking for. Thank's for helping mee kMANN

 

But it will be the same as one of the MMs of one of the dies used . We just have to check them all . And with only 97,000 minted there couldn't have been too many die marriages . This is also one of the most faked Trades because of the rarity of it .

 

Thanks the marks I saw under the 420 and over the "G" are gone. That's why everyone should learn to tip and rotate the coin in the light during an exam. Still don't know about those over states.

Now, look at the thickness of the "N" for example. Compare that to the genuine coin. While heavy buffing will spread out the width of the "N" for example, this appears to be too much. I'm still C/F and would like to see the area above "States." One photo upside down and one sideways of that area may provide the "nail" in the coffin.

 

Very true!. I could tell you the die marriages but then I'll need to ... "They" may me too for .

 

Somthing like this ??

 

I think what we have here is Breen 5823 repunched 8 and cc. The rarest of the 3 known mintmark positions. It's been cleaned to death but I think there's a very good chance it's real. Im just not 100% on the mintmark Im out of town and don't have any of my references and books here. @crypto79 any help?

 

Yes, this is a lamination. That is a + on the side of genuine. So one plus and one minus. With just photo's and harsh cleaning, I am going to give up on this one

 

I am not an expert but that coin looks good to me...besides one of the harshest cleanings I have seen in a while.

 

It's not 5824 (post 3?), which to the best of my knowledge would leave two. The remaining two, including the one you mentioned, have large mintmarks of the same size and distance apart, yet the OP "coin" displays smaller marks more widely spaced, very reminiscent of what was used in 76. The tail feathers also appear not to be filled, which alone, if true, should be a killer. Also, from my best recollections, I've concerns regarding the date position as well, and this is aside from general concerns regarding overall appearance.

 

My biggest concern is an altered mm from a 78-s

 

IMO, NOT A CHANCE. Coin is either a harshly cleaned genuine or C/F 78-CC. Guess that's not saying much. I'm still