| Author |
 Replies: 26 / Views: 3,684 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8137 Posts |
The mintmark is too small. and nothing really looks right. I would say fake. It,s a little odd that someone would bother faking a coin as common as this one.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7641 Posts |
The mint mark on the 21-s is supposed to be small. The d-mint 1921 dollars also have a very small mint mark.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1554 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
506 Posts |
Edited by coinlover168
09/21/2014 4:58 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1750 Posts |
I'd say a fake. 1921's are an ugly coin anyway. The real Morgan dollar died in 1904. The new hubs for 1921 were garbage. Edited by DoubleEagle20
09/22/2014 12:20 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1158 Posts |
Just looks super stripped down from a terrible chemical bath, if you ask me. I just don't know why someone would counterfeit this coin.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4846 Posts |
People counterfeit common dates for the same reason people counterfeit $1s and $5s, it's a lot less suspicious and you still get a pretty big gain on your investment.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7641 Posts |
The more I look, the more I believe that both the 21-S dollar and 42-S half he has for sale are both genuine coins.
Unfortunately, both have been very harshly cleaned. That's why they both look so "funky".
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
2520 Posts |
I don't see anything wrong with the Walker. But looking on the Morgan's reverse, my feeling says that there's something not right with it.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United Kingdom
18010 Posts |
My 1921S for comparison - probably an example of a coin that OUGHT to be cleaned, but I am pretty sure it's authentic as it was given to my late Mother many years ago by a couple from Texas who had a small hoard of Morgans saved from circulation:  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21788 Posts |
The surface looks very dull, doesn't it? That may be the result of harsh chemical cleaning wothout rinsing, followed by re patination over some decades.
The first thing I would do is check it against a known genuine Morgan, with a comparative ring tone test.
The second thing I would do is weigh it accurately to the nearest 1/100 of a gram. If you don't have an accurate enough scales or mass balance, take it to the local high school chemistry laboratory or your local pharmacy, they may help you.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
The tail feathers and mint mark are precisely as I'd expect on a 1921 Morgan - you'll rarely see those feathers fully-struck on a 1921 from any mint and mint marks are small across the issue (I wonder if they just used existing Half Dollar punches or something).
Especially in the detail image, though, the fuzziness of details where devices meet field make this fakery obvious.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2520 Posts |
I looked at several other 1921s and none of them have that "weak between letters and rim but strong rim". So what do we do about this? Now I'm confused.
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Tough call. I don't think the seller is dishonest, either, and there's a remote possibility that a previous heavy whizzing which was allowed to age a bit *might* look like that, so I must concede the chance that the coin is genuine but whizzed. A polite email from someone (I'm not home, posting from my phone, so it'd be tough for me) would probably be appropriate. Even if it included a link to this thread; we're always willing to engage honest sellers in honest feedback which will help both them and the hobby.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2520 Posts |
I don't have ebay yet but I will try to get one next year. Could you message him SD? |
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 26 / Views: 3,684 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 09/21/2014 3:14 pm
