1799 US Coin - Would Love Information

Hello,

The one big sore thumb that stood out on this counterfeit coin is the lower portion of the upper loops on the top parts of the 99; they are significantly thicker compared to the authentic PCGS photos.

I verified almost all of 99s of the major and minor die varieties(BB-154 through BB-169) and each of the 99s of the 1799 appear to be similar in that the PCGS coins all possess thinner dates at least in the referred-to areas previously alluded to.

Please review the following photos for comparison:

mdpmedia, I don't know that you can make this claim based on comparisons to professional photographs of mint-state coins. The pics we have are just too blurry, even to say whether the details look mushy; the second set posted by Goods are a bit clearer and, indeed, the bottom curls of the 9s appear thinner in them. Also, wear itself can make a narrow feature appear more broad. Of course, so can a die transfer copy process, and I think we can say at least that, if this is a counterfeit, it was directly copied from a genuine coin. One spot I would like to see up close is the reverse at ICA, near the rim. It looks like the denticles may not go all the way out to the edge; a die transfer copy can have some shrinkage in the process, and a blank halo may be necessary for the coin to be produced at a diameter comparable to the genuine article. I still think colonialjohn is right; the most concerning evidence for a forgery is still the spot of what looks like verdigris.
What little we can see of the edge lettering looks correct, which probably rules out a 19th century electrotype.

All I see is the "fishtail" or "swallowtail" metal flow striking anomaly, causing invaginations at the bases of long uprights in the letters. It's prominent on all the letters on this coin. All it means is that this coin, or the coin it was copied from, was struck without a collar.

Shield is all wrong

The tilt of the B to the right makes me think this is 1799 obverse 4, which was used on varieties BB-156, 157, 161, 162, 163, and 164.


The reverse for 163 looks close, but we just don't have a good enough reverse pic. If the reverse matches none of those varieties, we may be lucky enough to have a counterfeiter who took impressions from different coins and mixed them up.

Hey guys, I took a few more photos. Sorry, they're still not the best, I think I need to get my hands on a scanner. But I also weighed the coin and unfortunately the weight comes in at 24g...

EDIT - Woah those images came out tiny. Sorry, not my intention.

24 g is a bit light. There is some wear, but not 2 or 3 g worth.