Counterfeit Trade Dollar [pics Added]

Well, the Trade dollar has arrived safely. I must admit that in person it looks a LOT better than in the pictures posted.

I agree with ANACS that it is a struck copy. This is not a cast coin. The dies were made by a transfer process that I suspect was casting - however - what ever method was used to make the transfer dies, the dies themselves were heavily re-worked to remove problems.

But I am getting ahead of myself. I usually start with a quick physical inspection including weight. The coin is essentially intact with a significant amount of "mint" luster. Color and ring are fine. Grade is near mint and there is no obvious loss of metal. The standard weight of a Trade dollar is 27.22 grams and it is 900 fine silver. I did notice that the edges of the coin have been artificially removed by filing around the entire perimeter. This would cause a loss of some metal but in my opinion not too much. I would expect the coin to weigh 27.1 grams or more.

I initially check weight with a 1/10th gram digital scale. I got 27.0 grams which is too low, in my opinion, for a coin in this grade even with the abrasive treatment observed at the "corners". So I get out my 4 beam analytical scale. The coin is definitely underweight - it weighs only a small fraction of a gram over 27 grams (27.03 grams exactly). That is light enough to raise my suspicions.

Because of the weight the next step is SG. The coin has a specific gravity of 10.12. The standard SG for a 90% silver alloy with 10% copper is 10.34. This is a very SERIOUS problem and coupled with the weight is usually enough to diagnose a fraud. Now it could be a mint made fraud, but in this particular series I am unaware of the existance of debased coins being produced IN the mint.

So my next step is a review with a 10X loupe starting with the edge. Here I got a surprise. The evidence for split tail reeding - which seemed so clear on the photos is actually far weaker in person. I was able to locate only three adjacent segments with a line at the top of the reed which might point to application of reeds with a ring die.

This caused me to get out the microscope more quickly than normal. I examined the entire edge of the coin at 30X. The reeds are simple V grooves with indication of a side to side die scraping motion. However, I noticed that 99% of the reed tops were polished after fine sanding. This is NOT normally seen on an original and points to a post fabrication alteration.

I can state with a very high degree of certainty that this is a struck coin. I do not believe the reeds were applied with a single or double die edging mill. I also do not believe a collar die was used in striking the coin. I believe this was reeded with a ring die but then a significant effort was made to conceal that fact. The square edges between the faces and the edge were ground fully around the perimeter at least TWO times on each face. The grinding was apparently done against an abrasive wheel. The coin was spun while being held against the wheel. This appears to be done by hand because the groves produced are slightly irregular but the angle of the grooves is generally consistent. There is one metal flake that resulted from a tiny delamination of the planchet below the 1 in the date. This delamination was folded back by the edge grinding and it covers one of the dentils partially.

I then looked at both faces with 30X and higher magnification concentrating on three critical elements:
1. The fields and any irregularities 2. Fine details and edges of details and 3. The dentils.

I discovered several serious problems and clues to die preparation.

The dies were prepared from an original host coin and the transfer was likely either spark erosion or direct casting in a fine matrix material. There are traces of individual element repunching that appear on the host coin. The dies after transfer were heavily tooled probably under a microscope to remove most traces of how the dies were made. The fields were smoothed by lapping resulting in dies that produce a nice artificial mint luster when struck. The dies were ground slightly convex as they should be.

I am leaning toward a fine grained casting (like dental plastic) because I discovered an arc shaped scratch in one field that was partially erase by lapping. This results in a series of disconnects in what otherwise looks like a die scratch (a raised line segment). I suspect dental plastic was used because the arc resembles a simple cut in a soft surface. It is RAISED on the coin but is discontinuous. There are numerous straight raised line segments as well which are an indication filing of the die. These lines are normal on all older dies and are caused by repair lapping to extend die life. But overall the dies were properly finished with a slightly convex shape because the coin surfaces rise near the edges. This is a surprising feature to see since most forgers miss that detail.

The finest details are POOR with no sharp edges which is an obvious clue to a transfer process. However, a very heavily worn die could produce very similar results. This possibility is mitigated against by the fact that you rarely ever see a coin struck from a heavily worn Trade dollar die. I suspect the mint keep up die quality simply because they were Trade dollars and needed to be accepted in business. Worn dies produce suspicious looking coins (they all look like casts) so they would not be well received especially in an era when counterfeiting was extensive and trust was minimal.

There is clear evidence of tooling with a stylus because of raised line segments on the high points of the coin. This means that the die has scratches in the deepest recesses of the dies. The deep recesses are seen as the high points of the design - letter surfaces tops of branches etc. This points to a great deal of work being done on the dies to eliminate problems. This is an added step that makes the forgery a bit harder to spot.

There are a few round raised spots on the coin that resemble casting voids. They result in RAISED rounded lumps. They are small and most were removed, but enough remain to arouse additional suspicions. I even found what I believe are traces of the removal effort in one spot. The die surface was scraped and the scrapes are visible on the finished coin.

Based on a few surface voids that show effects of compression by the force of the strike - I believe the planchet was cast. This is not conclusive but I see no evidence of rolling. I could see no planchet scratches (like adjustment lines). I have taken some close up pictures and I will try to post some of them tomorrow.

This coin is perhaps the most deceptive modern fake that I have seen in at least a year. These are quite dangerous for novices. I don't think a cautious collector who weighs and does SG's would be fooled.

xshift If this coin was slabbed it would be hard to diagnose as a forgery - I would be suspicious but without a 30X or higher microscope I would be suspicious but I would not offer a firm opinion. A hand held loupe is really not quite enough here unless you have a lot of experience with the type. This is the type I would not spend enough time on at a show to realize it was a fake.

In a 2x2, if I could bend the cardboard enough to clearly see how the edge was filed - that would be one step closer and I would ask a dealer if I could remove the coin from the holder.

I think it is very fortunate for the buying public that mint luster does NOT show well in photos. Pictures also do not show the convex nature of the dies used. These two factors taken together are why it looks so much better in person than in pictures. Now that forgers have mastered the technique we are going to be in a bit more trouble.

One other comment - imagine if the forger had only used 900 fine silver from cull Morgans to make their planchet. That is what scares me.

I am working on posting the pictures but since I have gotten this new computer I haven't quite figured it out yet.

Swamperbob,
Thanks for your fantastic analysis of this deceptive forgery. You have done a great service for those of us who are not expert in the delicate art and science of Counterfeit Detection. Hats off to you sir!

Regarding your question about the lumps: they look like the effect of die rust. Similar features are fairly common on, say, some bust quarters from the 1830's. Would such rusted-die artifacts be inconsistent with Trade dollar dies manufactured in the 1870's?

Swamperbob.. so is that what that particular set of lumps is supposed to be or look like?

Thanks again for going over this coin so minutely! It has been a good learning experience.

Something stands out with this picture to me, but only within the limited experience I have observing die rust. I've looked at quite a few rusted-die Morgans, mostly 1921's but some from other years, and none of them show the sharp delineation - the "edge" - I see on the bottom of the largest, topmost patch. What I've seen is more like individual pinpoints, some of which are grouped into larger areas of rust, but you can still imagine how each point you see started as a single point.

Given what swamperbob said previously about the care lavished on Trade dollar production, the concept of allowing die rust to progress to this point at all doesn't fit.

When you are zoomed in close (camera or microscope), yes it is. It's hard to see in-hand (although the filing would be more readily apparent, I think, if one knew to look for that..), and would be impossible to see in a slab.

Ahh. Thickness, the non-obvious dimension. Makes complete sense now. Thanks for the detail and great write-up. Hopefully you save a few of us the headaches that these counterfeiters are capable of bringing.