| Author |
 Replies: 18 / Views: 5,426 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
63 Posts |
Ok guys and gals, The thickness of this coin is .128, the thickness of the 1883 that I measured and weighed is .115   The weight of the 1884S is 26.43 Gms and the 1883 was 26.66? I am going to try to attach pictures of the culprit for your appraisal. I am grading this as XF-40+ but am open to your opinion. Thanks in advance and God bless. rcordell Edited by rcordell
04/01/2013 3:31 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
63 Posts |
Hello dave700X,
With a 10 power loop there isn't any seam, and my grade for this coin is XF-40+.. ....TC&GB.. rcordell
Edited by rcordell
04/01/2013 3:32 pm
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
10625 Posts |
The date position doesn't look right for the 1884-S obverse dies. come to think of it the date digits do not look right either.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
373 Posts |
I would presume that if it was a base metal counterfeit meant to pass in commerce, it was made thicker to match the weight of a real Morgan (which yours does reasonably well). From time immemorial, merchants have weighed coins to verify them, so a counterfeiter has to get the weight right. And a merchant certainly would notice a wrong diameter as soon as he stacked it on another Morgan dollar. But a coin that is the right weight and diameter, but a mere 10% thicker, might go unnoticed. Finally, the bad news is that if your coin is the same weight and diameter, but thicker than a real Morgan, it *cannot* be made of the correct 90% silver alloy. It *must* be counterfeit. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12437 Posts |
How are you measuring the thickness? If you are measuring the rim and not the fields, then your measurement is meaningless as the thickness of a rim can be variable because it is a function of striking pressure.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
63 Posts |
biokemist6,
I think you hit it exactly, I measured an 1883-O on the cheek and the 1884-S on the cheek and came up with .114 &.117 respectively.
I also weighed 4 random coins and found the following 1921=26.70....1921D=26.69...1890-O 26.47... and an 1889=26.70...
The book calls for 26.73 on the Morgans. I also looked at the rims on several other Morgans and noticed a distinct difference in diameter between coins.
Whether this is a fake or not I would still appreciate someone taking a shot at grading this coin.
ProfLiz,dave700X,supgog, and biokemist6, thank you for jumping in with the help, this is a great forum. Take care and God bless. rcordell
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5854 Posts |
There are fakes of common date Morgan dollars. Many of the base metal chinese counterfeits cost less than 50 cents to make and can be sold for a few dollars to unsuspecting buyers. Do this a couple thousand times and over various dates and you will have a pretty nice profit. I share similar sentiments with dave700x. The date looks a little off. If you can get a close up of that area, that will be great. On the reverse, there is a like a cut on all the denticles between America and Dollar. |
|
Valued Member
United States
63 Posts |
Hi all, I tried getting closer and all I get is a blur. I was going to compare my 1884-CC to this 1884-S and couldn't get them to come out clearly.  Since I had the CC out anyway I thought I would post it and see what you thought as far as grade goes. Thanks in advance and God bless...rcordell |
|
Valued Member
United States
63 Posts |
Sorry the reverse did not post initially!  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5854 Posts |
I hate having to say this but I am not getting good vibes with this coin either. The date looks slightly off to me and I see two lumps on the obverse: one above the eye and in front of the forehead and another by the E. I hope this does not turn you off from collecting.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1796 Posts |
Yeah, the 1884-S is certainly a fake. No doubt.
I'd wager it's a copper counterfeit that has been silver plated, hence the extra thickness to increase its weight to spec. These wholesale for about $3-4 bucks on the right websites in bulk. I've examined about a half dozen of them in-hand (although I do not have any in my personal counterfeit collection).
The reason why they fake more common dates nowadays is simply due to how high the price of silver is, coupled with the fact that people give common dates less scrutiny than keys before they buy.
Sorry, my friend. :-(
EDIT: The 1884-CC is also a prime candidate for forgery given the lumps that D0ubl3Eagle pointed out (they're usually caused by either bubbles in the casting medium or poor die transfer); however, that one I'd need to examine closer to be 100% sure.
Edited by SteveCaruso
04/02/2013 9:51 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
63 Posts |
Well, I have always learned the hard way and this appears to be another lesson in life! I remember who I got these two Morgans from and unfortunately there was another coin involved. It may very well be the 1890-O that came up 26.47gms. This morning while I was looking at the 1884-CC and it's bubbles (feeling sorry for myself ;-)....) I thought I would dig out a a few older PCG and ANACS graded coins and post them. I took 4 coins and compared what I paid for them years ago, and what the 2011 value guide said they were worth, and I had lost money on one, broken even on one and made a slight profit on two (38-D Buffalo MS64 and a 1945 Mercury also in MS64. I think I will start collecting stamps...   . Just kidding about the stamps the are probably counterfitting those also. All jokes aside thanks to all of you for the help and time you have invested in this post..............I did learn. Take care and God bless. rcordell |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3755 Posts |
Steve, what exactly about the first coin makes you say for sure it is fake? Not doubting, just wanting to know what you are seeing there.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1796 Posts |
@smokeriderdon - No problem. :-)
The short list, to be taken as a whole is:
1) The fact that it's too thick to fit in a standard capsule. - This is rather unusual to begin with, but is very common with copper core fakes; I mentioned earlier about the extra thickness bringing them up to the proper weight.
2) The odd doubled (and in some places tripled) denticles on both sides. - It would be very unusual for a genuine coin to have denticles that look like this as the only way for it to happen is if it was stacked with other coins with sharp rims and then struck hard. On a silver coin, with the force necessary, you'd see some flattening on the highest portions of the central devices, as well as on the rim, itself, where they start and stop. But here, we do not. This suggests strongly that it was struck that way.
3) The date, mint mark, and stars aren't quite right. - They're all a bit too soft and the level of wear on the stars doesn't quite match the rest of the coin. The same with some of the text like "DOLLAR" but it is not as pronounced. It's hard for counterfeiters to get this part right as it's such a sharp contrast on genuine coins.
4) The patina doesn't quite look natural with the wear on the coin. - Where this can never really be taken on its own, it enforces the possibility of forgery when taken into account with the rest.
I'm sure if I stare at it more I could find some more things to pick with it over, but these -- as a unit -- are pretty strong. :-)
Edited by SteveCaruso
04/04/2013 9:18 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3755 Posts |
OK, that is pretty much what I was thinking as well. But I hate saying this and that just doesn't look right. The main thing that looks "off" to me is the eagle, but I can not quite figure what is off or if it is just me. LOL
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 18 / Views: 5,426 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 04/01/2013 3:21 pm
