| Author |
 Replies: 24 / Views: 4,491 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10284 Posts |
The arrow shafts are incomplete and the C in CENTS looks wanting for more of a C. Usually it's the vertical bars that are a giveaway for fakes and these are remarkably straight as they should be. You guys got me wondering too now.  I think if it is a fake, it is one of the best fakes I ever saw for a Shield nickel. The cross looks a little off, it should be a bit more squared off at the right angles. I guess I just was so excited for the OP that I only looked for wear. Yes, the closer I look comparing to other images I have found of genuine high grade 1867 w rays this is starting to bother me as well. Edited by TNG
04/21/2012 9:00 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5854 Posts |
This one looks good at first glance but some of the details don't look so good like the date and arrow shafts. Overall details appear to be a bit mushy and there appears to be some lumps of metal on and around the 5. I am suspicious as well.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8904 Posts |
I don't like the looks of this date either. The rest of coin looks mushy but the date really bugs me. Thoughts? 1867 Shield Nickel (With both reverses)     Edited by Moe145
04/21/2012 11:26 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
3546 Posts |
Quote:
Is that a scratch on the obverse? yes Also, I just weighed this coin at 4.19 grams |
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21788 Posts |
There is always the standard ring tone test with modern coins.
|
|
CCF Sponsor
United States
702 Posts |
That one is underweight, should be 5g. When a coin is heavily worn, that kind variation is acceptable - although I'd say that's about the outer limit. However, as this coin appears to be in what's supposed to be uncirculated (or nearly so), I'd say that's a pretty stout telltale.
These are very nice copies, though!
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21788 Posts |
We as a group have almost concluded that this coin is not genuine.
Not all is lost. The salvage that can be made is that this coin can become part of a reference collection to aid in the identification of fakes.
I buy all of the fake coins that are offered (PROVIDED that they are sold as fake), to add to my reference collection. If there is an OBVIOUS intention to deceive, I normally report the seller.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
424 Posts |
There's always ANACS for authenticity...got that deal going for $10... edit...make that 14 bucks, I just checked... https://goccf.com/t/116898Edited by Funny Money
04/22/2012 08:27 am
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
This is a complete fake. The date just screams it. the denticals are funky, as mentioned te right arrow shaft is missing but it doesn't show weakness from polishing in that area. The whole thing just looks wrong. I don't think it is contemporary either. It has the look of one of the modern Chinese fakes. And it is. The Counterfeiter the Coin World likes to interview so much, can't remember his name, started with a J, used to have pictures of all his counterfeits posted on it. I downloaded all of them before his photo host went away and this coin is an exact match for his 67 rays piece. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10284 Posts |
Yes, I must apologize for giving such false hopes in my earlier posts.  I see that the word CENTS also does not quite line up as it should with the rays. See the N is off a bit and some of the stars are too close to some of the rays. On a side observation, I just realized on Moes genuine coins pictured .. Isn't it interesting in the images supplied by Moe how it shows the stars line up in completely different areas on with stars vs the no stars coins? See the N in CENTS lines up with the rays on his and on the w/o rays version it is between stars. Yepper, it is a good fake but it goes to show how closely we need to study our coins before buying them. Good thing we have the collective knowledge and experience of this forum to help us all in this great hobby. Edited by TNG
04/22/2012 11:27 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1796 Posts |
At ~4 grams it is without a doubt a counterfeit, otherwise there would be nearly no detail left.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12437 Posts |
The mushy indistinct denticles were an immediate red flag for me and and a weight of only 4.2 grams pretty much seals the deal for not genuine.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Quote:
Isn't it interesting in the images supplied by Moe how it shows the stars line up in completely different areas on with stars vs the no stars coins?
See the N in CENTS lines up with the rays on his and on the w/o rays version it is between stars. There are at least four different rev hubs used on the Shield nickels, one for the with rays and three for the no rays and the stars line up differently on each of them. (There is also at least one more with rays rev of the adopted type that also has the stars differently arranged but I believe it was only used on patterns.) |
|
Valued Member
United Kingdom
348 Posts |
Hi .. yes I have to concur it is 100% fake shield and looks to me to be a False die type.. these are highly sort by shield buffs but I do not think yours is a contempary forgery as all the ones I have seen are usually with the reverse hub variety IIa as the forgers of the time did not go for the "with rays" reverse as they had stopped producing them by the time the forgers were up and running. and the simpler design was a lot easier to copy.
so I would say that this piece is a modem "ish" one since the with rays type has been increasing in value.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3234 Posts |
Reverse looks quite odd to me.
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 24 / Views: 4,491 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 04/21/2012 8:55 pm
