http://www.ebay.com/itm/1874CC-1-Tr...117937?hash=item33ca955b31:g:PK4AAOSw4YdYyvzD Seller provides high quality images that allow close inspection of details, unlike many eBay sellers. What do you think?
Cause it's a trade dollar that isnt in a slab? It looks convincing enough. My problem with it however, is that counterstamp looks like a jumble of numbers. It certainly doesnt look like the typical asian counterstamps I have seen. I dont know a whole lot about these but did higher grade pieces have counterstamps? I mean if they did, wouldnt they have spent some time in circulation and show some wear?
I see a hole or indent coveted.up with a few imprints of the number 5. Also scratches on obverse. If real, it may be a problem coin that someone tried to mask as a chopnarked coin.
I don't think it's fake, but it looks like it lost a fight with a Brillo pad, and I agree the "chop mark" does not look Asian.
One thing that IS apparently correct about the OP's coin is the "4" in the date, with its serif below the bottoms of the other three numerals, and the upright slanted slightly, LL to UR. I looked at two dozen 1874 trade dollars on eBay and they all had that characteristic of the date, mostly graded examples. Would all mint marks show that same peculiarity in the date, or just the products of one mint? Who added the mint mark at that point in history, Philadelphia or the branch Mints?
Mint marks were hand punched at the branch mints in each individual die, so you can see differences in position on coins from different reverse dies.
I find it odd that most of the heavy abrasion is in the fields while the devices remain relatively untouched. Something looks off around the arrow tips on the reverse. It almost looks like the photo has been smoothed since everything is crisp except that spot. I don't know why one pinpoint spot would be out of focus.
I think it's the same die pair as this PCGS example. Same weak over-polished obverse die seen on the bale and the wheat stalks and same broken E in America on the reverse. I do question the chop mark though on the OP example. http://www.ebay.com/itm/1874-CC-Tra...689416?hash=item21228e9148:g:iMkAAOSwOgdYoOIi
I looked at it again and started to have a few doubts, so looked harder. Here is my case for it being a fake (and I can't be 100% sure in this case). Realize that without the good quality, sharp images and the mag. feature I would not be able to make any decent assessment other than damage. rev: metal movement/tooling lower left; maybe to cover some damage but just as likely to conceal defects from transfer die process. Malformed dentils above UNITED STATES (some could be spotting but overall I see problems); the odd looking chop (I am no expert on these); metal damage near the rim from 2:00-4:00, could be natural corrosion or acid applied to conceal something else; letters in ERICA look fat/puffy, often seen on transfer die forgeries. obv: problems with dentils between stars 4-6; metal movement on Liberty's neck and hair (forgeries often don't get the hair bun right, maybe covering up); malformed dentils about 7:00; distortion in the lower part of the ribbon,and drapery to left of the bale, sort of "hollow" areas that often happen with a poorly made transfer die; scattered tiny blobs on the dress/drapery; tiny depressions in the 18 of date, that don't show any metal movement again possibly artifact from the transfer die process. I also can't find flattening or bulging opposite the "chop mark" which seems odd. Remember that transfer dies are made from genuine coins so will show "real" characteristics of dates, mm's, etc. Such are the perils of buying raw trade dollars, especially CC trade dollars, online. I have been burned before. Someone else may be able to make a good case for it being genuine, I hope so as I am always willing to learn and be relieved of any misconceptions I may have.
Both Burdette (from Mine to Mint) and Bowers (guide to Morgan Dollars) state that mintmarks were added to working dies at the Philadelphia mint, which were then shipped to the branch mints.
