Wondering about authenticity of this piece (possibly 1807/6?). Or contemporary counterfeit status?

Discussion in 'World Coins' started by Rhazada, Mar 29, 2020.

  1. Paul M.

    Paul M. Well-Known Member

    @GDJMSP : What book is that in the photo?

    I hope you were joking... this is @GDJMSP's pocket piece. He's posted about it before.
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Stevearino

    Stevearino Well-Known Member

    OK, thanks. But I wasn't joking. I didn't know it was his pocket piece.

    Steve
     
    Paul M. likes this.
  4. Paul M.

    Paul M. Well-Known Member

    Ah, no problem. That wasn't intended as a jab or an insult. I just thought it was pretty well known amongst members who have been here for a few years that Doug has an AGE pocket piece. :) Now you know!
     
  5. Stevearino

    Stevearino Well-Known Member

    Thumbs up.

    Steve
     
  6. Razz

    Razz Critical Thinker

    looks suspiciously like a photo of page 287 of the 8th edition Coin World Almanac that was posted for educational purposes in a previous discussion about tolerances.
     
    Paul M. likes this.
  7. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    As has been explained by others, the coin didn't look like that when I bought it new. And yes, I carried that specific one in my pocket, with 4 quarters and a pocket knife, every day for 7 years. And I also used it as my flipping coin - as in, I'll flip ya for it. That is how it acquired the wear you see. What's more, there were 3 other 1 oz AGE coins that I carried in my pocket, each during different time periods, in the years before I owned and carried that one. In other words, over a period of time exceeding a couple of decades, I always had a 1 oz AGE as my pocket coin/flipping coin.

    Anyway, the point of me posting this one for you was to illustrate just how much or how little weight a coin actually loses due wear over a long period of time.

    So, given the numbers you used - 33.931 and 33.5 - your guess is that it lost about 0.431 grams of weight due to wear.

    In point of fact the coin lost 0.003 grams of weight due to that much wear. So to answer your question, you were off by 0.428 grams.

    And no I don't have too many zeros in there, that is precisely how much weight it lost due to wear - three thousandths of a gram. Almost none at all in other words. And as I said in the previous post that number is based what the coin actually weighed the day I bought it, brand new and nearly perfectly like they all are, and what the coin actually weighed that day I took that picture.

    My point of course in all of this was to illustrate that coins lose very, very little weight due to wear - until that wear reaches extremes. Only then do they begin to lose any appreciable weight at all. And extremes are defined as being a Good grade or lower.

    Are there ever exceptions ? Yes, but very few. I have never seen a single coin, not even one, that lost enough weight to take it lower than its specified tolerance level until it reached at least low VG condition. Based on the thousands of coins of all denominations and composition that I have tested 99% of them retained minimum specified weight until they got G or lower.
     
  8. Stevearino

    Stevearino Well-Known Member

    @GDJMSP, you have violated one of my father's tenets: "Never carry more than you can afford to lose." :nailbiting: . That's why I always have about $2 in my back pocket.

    Steve
     
  9. Rhazada

    Rhazada New Member

    Okay, point well taken :) I’ll have to calibrate my scale significantly in order to determine accurate weights, this indicates it is giving both heavy and light readings on different coins. So as it stands right now, for coins I own, weight will not be a factor I can use until I can accurately determine it. Thank you for taking the time to go through this topic in such detail and for being patient :)

    In regards to this particular coin however, are there any red flag details that indicate it is not genuine? I’ll admit the proportions appear to be accurate and the other details I’ve mentioned suggest it isn’t any recent counterfeit. What do folks think about it otherwise?
     
    Stevearino likes this.
  10. Rhazada

    Rhazada New Member

    Let me also add this photo from my microscope, the 0 in the date. Odd marks around the numbers and letters near the edge, no idea what they would be considered.

    5590686F-12D9-45CB-B2F7-D40305360B26.jpeg
     
    Stevearino likes this.
  11. jgenn

    jgenn World Crown Collector

    Very accurate die transfer technology has been around since the mid-1800's*. It's not clear to me what you mean by "recent counterfeit" and does it really matter how recently it was faked, since it's not a contemporary counterfeit?

    * from Wikipedia: "Sculptors use a three-dimensional version of the pantograph,[5] usually a large boom connected to a fixed point at one end, bearing two rotating pointing needles at arbitrary points along this boom. By adjusting the needles different enlargement or reduction ratios can be achieved. This device, now largely overtaken by computer guided router systems that scan a model and can produce it in a variety of materials and in any desired size,[6] was invented by inventor and steam pioneer James Watt (1736–1819) and perfected by Benjamin Cheverton (1796–1876) in 1836. Cheverton's machine was fitted with a rotating cutting bit to carve reduced versions of well-known sculptures.[7] A three-dimensional pantograph can also be used to enlarge sculpture by interchanging the position of the model and the copy.[8][9]

    Another version is still very much in use to reduce the size of large relief designs for coins down to the required size of the coin.[10]"
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2020
    Rhazada likes this.
  12. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    As I said in my first post in this thread -

    In other words, other than the weight issue, I don't see anything that throws up a red flag. And since I no longer own the books necessary to look up known diagnostics for fakes of this particular date/mint, all I can do is go by what facts I have in my head about these coins. And while that may be more than "the average bear", I'm definitely not an expert on these coins.
     
    Rhazada likes this.
  13. Rhazada

    Rhazada New Member

    Given the price I paid for this coin (around $60), I’m not unhappy with the coin as it appears, I personally like it, however I would certainly contact the seller and let them know and see how they would want to proceed (though as far as I know, the only thing that is outstandingly odd to me so far is the weight).

    And I wouldn’t mind knowing when it was created if it is a counterfeit, as long as it wasn’t made super recently. Some history attached to it would still make it interesting in my book, though I’d probably see about getting a partial refund from the seller for the item not being fully as described. But it is worth noting that I’ve read many older counterfeits are treated like the real thing by many dealers so it isn’t as huge a deal as it could be.
     
  14. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    It's called metal flow or die radials. These are found on die struck coins and get mor pronounced as the die wears. Counterfeits can duplicate the larger ones.
     
    Stevearino likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page