| Author |
 Replies: 21 / Views: 2,233 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
882 Posts |
I'm pretty sure it's a fake. There was a guy at the flea marker trying to sell a bunch of fake Morgans and Trade dollars for high amounds. Maybe I'll go try and peddling this off on him. A fake it is. Ty |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
maybe the CC stands for Central China on this coin
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1267 Posts |
Edited by hadleydog
02/12/2007 5:34 pm
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Hey, hadleydog, I'll trade you my wife for that real one.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1267 Posts |
quote:
Hey, hadleydog, I'll trade you my wife for that real one.
She slabbed?  Sadly, I do not own the coin. I was looking for a decent representative of the date to compare with and found this beauty in the Heritage archives. Would you believe she's only graded 64..........even with the chatter I can see on the cheek and in the left field she easily looks 65. Edited by hadleydog
02/12/2007 5:35 pm
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
quote:
She slabbed?
No, but sometimes I could.....never mind. I cannot believe that coin is not in a 65 slab. That must have been part of a bulk submission from a dealer the grader didn't like. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
603 Posts |
What are the parts that tipped everyone off that it was a fake? I noticed the 3 looking off, and something seems weird about the liberty, but I would have figured it was damage. What areas of a Morgan do forgers usually mess up on? Thanks
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1267 Posts |
cpfull, the first thing I look at on a rare date raw coin is the mintmark........especially on Carson City's. One quick look at the coin in question vs the real CC I posted and you can see something sure ain't right........ mm of coin in question vs real one   Image:  cc.jpg28.4 KB Image: ccrealone.jpg43.24 KB Edited by hadleydog
02/12/2007 7:37 pm
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
A couple things tipped me off: The obverse was entirely too weak - look at how much hair detail is missing - and the denticles were lacking in the precision one would expect of a Morgan strike.
And, the 1921-only reverse on an 1893 was kinda conclusive.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
603 Posts |
I didn't even know there was a 1921 only reverse. I need to look when I get home to see if I spot it quickly, otherwise I will be posting again
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1267 Posts |
quote:
and the denticles were lacking in the precision one would expect of a Morgan strike.
You can really see in the close-up that there is not a single denticle that received enough metal. quote:
And, the 1921-only reverse on an 1893 was kinda conclusive.
That pretty much kills it, huh. At least they spelled everything right.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
603 Posts |
Does the 1921 reverse have the more rounded leaves on the olive branch?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2254 Posts |
Ok, stupid is as stupid does, so here's one for the veterans to chuckle at...
In looking at the two photos provided by Hadleydog, my question is on the reverse. Forgive my terminology with this one, but on the right hand side branch, between the second and third set of leaves, I see two outside dots (olives, berries, whatever)on the fake, and on the original I only see one. Is this one of the contributing factors to a 1921 only reverse, or is this like this on all Morgans, and other things helped the experts come to this conclusion?
I'm sure there are a lot more, but this one stood out to me.
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
quote:
Forgive my terminology with this one, but on the right hand side branch, between the second and third set of leaves, I see two outside dots (olives, berries, whatever)on the fake, and on the original I only see one.
1921's used two reverses, D1 & D2. D1 has 17 berries (the dots you refer to), and D2 has 16. If I recall correctly, all other Morgans had 17 berries, although some had them split 9/8 and some 10/7 between the two sides of the wreath. The major feature for me on this coin is the arrow fletches - that flat-feather design is unique to 1921. There are other differences in the lettering, eagle's breast and the branch the eagle is holding, but those are difficult to see in a relatively small pic of a worn coin. It appears to be a correct 1921 reverse, but looking a little funny with a CC mint mark.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
882 Posts |
Just to let you guys know, I had it weighed. The fake CC dollar was a little on the light end. Even with a Good grade wroth of wear, it still was a little light. This is another way to detect fake morgans. I sure didn't know it had a 1921 reverse, though. Very interesting.
Ty
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 21 / Views: 2,233 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 02/11/2007 01:50 am
