| Author |
 Replies: 22 / Views: 4,120 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2023 Posts |
I'm no expert either but I don't like the looks of this one. The lines on the neck are too sharp and don't line up nicely with the genuine pic above. The "hair" on top of the head is too round and the lines don't look the same there either. The lower beak looks too narrow. The letters in the motto are a bit off -- the lines in the "L" and first "U" in Pluribus are about the same width while they're not in the genuine pic.
Some of that could be due to wear, or I'm looking at the wrong type of reverse, especially for the letters.
Edited by Alpha2814
09/30/2017 8:09 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4471 Posts |
With your second close up photo the neck feathers look more like a type 1. There is a bump below the feathers that made it look like the feathers extended to the wing. I would submit the coin for grading as it appears genuine. It does look cleaned.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1261 Posts |
If you had 6 local dealers look at it and they all said it's real then why do you still question its authenticity? $230 wasn't a bad offer imo.
|
|
New Member
 United States
5 Posts |
Okay, so I posted it here for another opinion. I had the 6 dealers review it, I researched it for a few years for all of the typical tells of a fake (some of what you posted slider23), I took it to several jewelers to test the weight and all came back to about 27.2g and they checked the diameter which was 38.1mm. Everything came back as pretty accurate based on the research and those 6 dealers opinions.....but it just came back from PCGS as counterfeit. I posted here because, I have read some places that PCGS has slabbed some fakes before and also rejected some real Trade dollars before too, and I wanted to get your thoughts before sending off to NGC for another chance at grading. I also posted on another forum and most everyone came back as fake due to "Study the shape of the letters. Compare them with a genuine coin on the internet. They are totally CRUDE!" and a few other things too. I didn't post about the PCGS results because I didn't want it to impact your opinion since I was considering sending it to NGC. I'm still conflicted. |
|
Rest in Peace
10197 Posts |
According to sliders original pic of type1 feathers, notice the width of each feather and veining shown. OPs coin is just hard line, no details whatsoever of a feather which is clearly seen on both type 1 & type2 reverses
COIN IS A COUNTERFEIT, PERIOD!
|
|
Valued Member
United States
414 Posts |
This is a very good forgery if it is one. I do agree with some of the feedback here.
1. The feathers on the neck are off, too straight, and the grooves much too deep
2. The obvious incorrect type of eagle for the year
3. Period after 'grains' instead of a comma
4. The cleaned fields (forgeries almost always are well worn or have cleaned/rubbed fields)
5. I personally think that 's' mintmark looks off, a bit too small and out of place
Yet the coin appears to be struck to my eye. Could you post some close up pics of the coin's rims, specifically the reverse above the words 'of'. Also you say the coin is 27.2g and diameter is 38.1mm. These are book numbers. Coins usually exhibit some variation in both diameter and weight. Secondly, if the diameter is indeed 38.1 what is the width of the coin? Any chance this coin could be a proper coin that someone just altered the date on?
|
|
New Member
United States
5 Posts |
I will post the requested photo in the morning.
The weight and diamiter we're about the book noted number, aLittle off but within the acceptible +/- on both.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4471 Posts |
The bump below the neck feathers could be a cast bump and may be the reason PCGS did not certify the coin as Alpha noted the neck looks a little strange when compared to the certified coin. It doesn't surprise me that a TPG can get the authencation incorrect as the research on Trade dollars leaves a lot to be desired. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4471 Posts |
Cableguy, on Trade dollars the mint size and location are not a good tool to determine authencation as mark were done by hand at the local mint. The mint marks can be different sizes and position. For example, the 74 S had a mini, medium, and large size S. |
|
Valued Member
United States
414 Posts |
Slider, thank you for that. I didn't know that mint marks were done by hand. Is this a common attribute for US coins of the era or something specific Trade dollars? P.S. how does one quote something here? |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1261 Posts |
I wouldn't bother sending it in to NGC. You're going to get the same result as PCGS. It doesn't sound like you have good coin dealers in your area.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Here is a section similar to the detail pic from the last page, cropped from a PCGS CoinFacts full-size image. Comparing details, I see sufficient departure from the "good" coin - even accounting for circulation wear - to believe at this point that the OP coin is a good counterfeit.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4471 Posts |
Quote:I didn't know that mint marks were done by hand. Is this a common attribute for US coins of the era or something specific Trade dollars? The typical US dies were made with the mint mark in Philadelphia and shipped to the local mint. On the Trade dollar some dies were sent from Philadelphia with mint marks, but some of the dies mint marks were changed or added by hand at the local mints. Unless you know the specific variety it is very difficult to use the mint mark for authentication. For example, below on the 74CC Trade dollar the mint mark size changes, CC spacing changes and the mint mark position changes. 1874-CC: Mintmark .74 mm high; .75 mm spacing between C's. "Micro CC." 1874-CC: Mintmark .84 mm high; .4 mm spacing between C's. "Minute CC." 1874-CC: Mintmark.9 mm high; .75 mm spacing between C's. "Minute CC." 1874-CC: Mintmark 1.1 mm high; .55 mm spacing between C's. "Medium CC." Dot on 8 of date on obverse. 1874-CC: Mintmark 1.1 mm high; .6 mm spacing between C's. "Medium CC." Slight doubled die on reverse. 1874-CC: Mintmark 1.17 mm high; .6 mm spacing between C's. "Tall CC." 1874-CC: Mintmark .74 mm high; .75 mm spacing between C's. "Micro CC." 1874-CC: Mintmark .84 mm high; .4 mm spacing between C's. "Minute CC." 1874-CC: Mintmark.9 mm high; .75 mm spacing between C's. "Minute CC." 1874-CC: Mintmark 1.1 mm high; .55 mm spacing between C's. "Medium CC." Dot on 8 of date on obverse. 1874-CC: Mintmark 1.1 mm high; .6 mm spacing between C's. "Medium CC." Slight doubled die on reverse. 1874-CC: Mintmark 1.17 mm high; .6 mm spacing between C's. "Tall CC." To quote - click reply to topic then click on the format insert quote button and copy and past. Edited by Slider23
10/01/2017 12:53 pm
|
|
New Member
United States
5 Posts |
Thanks everyone for the feedback. I appreciate the help.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
414 Posts |
@Slider thanks for the info - very interesting. I have much to learn about the minutia of US coins. @bkstyl sorry brother, it seems like the consensus is that this is a forgery (a seemingly very good one). Bummer  It certainly had me fooled. |
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 22 / Views: 4,120 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 09/30/2017 8:07 pm
