Counterfeit 2004 Jefferson Nickel

I think swamperbob was just stating facts l had chance to bin but thought too much ha! :-) my regret. . Please post close up. A lot of us are very interested in findings. 1.4 million wow!

Seller should have used the "second chance" mechanism. That would have created a listing that no one else but you could have used. They probably weren't familiar with it. They probably didn't want to go through the hassle of fixing it for a $15 sale.

Swamperbob, you work for ebay? If you know Judith, please ask her why the counterfeits from a UK seller I reported twice were never pulled?

joseph_curwen I am not upset with you - you are likely a better more appreciative owner of a counterfeit nickel anyway. I am definitely upset with the seller who I see as somewhat of a dolt.

Regarding the coin are any of the surfaces pebbled or pockmarked like a laser engraver might produce. It looks like it might have been a copy created from a bad digital image of a photograph with shadows.

I always try to determine HOW a counterfeit was made.

Being magnetic I would suspect nickel rather than iron is involved - although you never know with counterfeiters. They tend to use whatever is at hand. I actually have a silver plated red plastic counterfeit from Germany so no metal or non-metal would surprise me.


OldSkoolMadSkilz I know Judith but I believe she is no longer involved with the English site. I know that the panel members are not.

I don't think the material cost is relevant. The only thing less profitable than counterfeiting nickels, is counterfeiting one nickel. Whomever made this, did it just to see if they could.

Attached are scans of the obverse and reverse of the coin. I apologize for the quality, but I do not have a suitable digital camera or the expertise in photographing coins. I think these scans, though of poor quality, manage to convey a sense of what the coin really look like, that is, a crude counterfeit. I intend to try to obtain high-quality digital photos of the coin; I will post those here as well.







Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread.


-Jos. Curwen, Gent.

Yes, the surface is like that, grainy or pitted. But, the detail is terrible, cartoonish, even. The scans, although not of great quality, convey the appearance of the coin rather well. But, does the method (digital engraver or perhaps a pantographic rotary engraver) account for the error in the observe motto ("IN GOD WE IRUST"), or the differing fonts and kerning on the reverse? I am not challenging your analysis, which I appreciate, by the way, just trying to make sense of this enigmatic counterfeit.


-Jos. Curwen, Gent.

Very neat discussion, but it would seem to me that the circumstances warrant that more than one of these was made and eventually will show up. In fact, if some time goes by the next one offered might go for much more. And so on and so forth until the primary supply is truly exhausted. Then a savvy counterfeiter might do quite well!

My question is about the original listing. The dealer goes on about some general notes on 2004 nickels regarding various MS grades, but virtually nothing about this coin specifically other than it has no men on the ship etc. He is a new dealer it seems with only 33 feedback. Did anyone ask him how he came about the coin? Or was it just assumed that he found it, happened to notice its potential value for ebay, and listed it for $4 being the only variety known to date, not thinking it was a counterfeit, but then updating that it was a counterfeit?

Just seems odd to me. The question is, how did HE get the coin? That needs to be known... Even if what I wrote above is his official version. Note I am not purporting anything personal here, just speculating a scenario that could be a possibility and is my opinion only.

Crouse27 You are restating my initial concern that the seller might in fact be the actual counterfeiter or know the counterfeiter. The slow release scenario plays well and you understand the pattern that drives a price up. Counterfeit collectors are inherently competitive (as we all are) and will pay what normal collectors think of as obscene amounts for fakes if they are rare.

That is why I asked the seller three questions:
1. Did he know it was counterfeit?
2. Did he have other examples for sale?
3. Where did he find it?

Joseph_Curwen Told you what answers I got - and the seller did add a note to his auction.

Being always concerned about accepting sellers at face value, I was concerned about his answers but since he didn't "find" a second example even though I offered $15. I figured the answers were honest. I thought a forger would have jumped at the price!

Of course if and when a second shows up I will check to see if there is a geographical connection or anything else that might point to a slow release scam.

For the present I have no idea of why it was found in circulation. It does not make financial sense. So there must be another reason.