| Author |
 Replies: 36 / Views: 5,243 |
Page 3 of 3
|
|
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
2668 Posts |
The rim looks funky to me. Could be real, did the mint do any that poor?
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12057 Posts |
I did search the no-no site and found only an 1888, not an 1888-S, and there was not much similarity. 1888-S is not a scarce date for Liberty Seated quarters, and with most of the diagnostics on this coin matching a known Briggs variety, I see no reason to doubt the authenticity; "mushiness" can be caused by a wide variety of things ranging from weak strike pressure, to die wear, greased dies, and PMD such as abrasive cleaning. Without a weight measurement and metal content testing such as XRF, I would be loath to brand this coin as a fake. Many of the no-no site coins and others are being made with non-magnetic alloys, and sometimes genuine silver plating, so while the magnet test is highly specific for fakes, it is very non-sensitive, to use a medical analogy. Member ANA - EAC - TNA - SSDC - CCT #890 "Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done." -- Louis D. Brandeis |
|
Valued Member
 United States
56 Posts |
Quote:
You can also manually insert a quote by putting the word quote in brackets then paste the quote and close it out with the word quote once again in brackets but with a forward slash before the word (within the brackets) Thanks!  Quote:
The rim looks funky to me. Could be real, did the mint do any that poor? No they didn't. Now that I see the reverse rim better there is the change in thickness. Thanks for adding that image debrajc . |
|
Valued Member
United States
56 Posts |
Quote:
I would also collect chocolate coins, except for that one problem. Interesting you should say that. The reverse has the distinct look of a foil-wrapped chocolate coin. Especially in the feathers. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
I side with Adam on this. The 1888-S was churned out with the highest mintage by far over the prior ten years, and I believe it is noted for being a slick-looking softer strike.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
56 Posts |
Quote:I did search the no-no site and found only an 1888, not an 1888-S, and there was not much similarity. 1888-S is not a scarce date for Liberty Seated quarters, and with most of the diagnostics on this coin matching a known Briggs variety, I see no reason to doubt the authenticity; "mushiness" can be caused by a wide variety of things ranging from weak strike pressure, to die wear, greased dies, and PMD such as abrasive cleaning. Without a weight measurement and metal content testing such as XRF, I would be loath to brand this coin as a fake. Many of the no-no site coins and others are being made with non-magnetic alloys, and sometimes genuine silver plating, so while the magnet test is highly specific for fakes, it is very non-sensitive, to use a medical analogy. Well that was my first impression that it was altered surfaced on a genuine coin. Wow, this has come full circle, just when everyone had me convinced the other way. Gerry Fortin has weighed in with a brief response and I am waiting to hear back from Brian Greer. I thought it was important enough to ask the heavy hitters to offer their ideas. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
56 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
It could well be. I owned a couple of very forgettable high grade 1888-S quarters twenty odd years ago.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3843 Posts |
Quote:
Gerry Fortin has weighed in with a brief response and I am waiting to hear back from Brian Greer. What did Gerry Fortin say about it? Curious on what the experts say. Although this is not an particularly expensive coin, the counterfeiters have been faking increasingly common coins of late. If they will fake common Morgans, they will fake XF/AU Seated Liberty quarters as well. |
|
Valued Member
United States
56 Posts |
Quote:What did Gerry Fortin say about it? Curious on what the experts say. Although this is not an particularly expensive coin, the counterfeiters have been faking increasingly common coins of late. If they will fake common Morgans, they will fake XF/AU Seated Liberty quarters as well. Gerry only confirmed that the obverse looks fine: " There is nothing obvious from the image. Date punch style and placement are typical for the date." And yes, on the web site '(Not Allowed)' you can see the many albeit clunky examples of SLQ copies and unfortunately much more. |
|
Valued Member
United States
56 Posts |
The seller has just sent over this close-up of the shield.  Not great definition, but still helpful. It clearly shows the 'BER' polished out of the die, but why the LI is also compromised I cannot say. Could it be that the cleaning was so harsh that it altered these small letters? |
|
Valued Member
United States
56 Posts |
On closer inspection I see that the 'LI' were not affected. Interesting thing about the word LIBERTY is that the first six letters lay out with six nearly evenly spaced stems.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12057 Posts |
At this point, the only (somewhat) definitive solution is to send it to one of the big 3 TPG's for authentication. Unfortunately, that's hard to do with a coin you don't own. If seller has an ironclad returns policy (no questions asked and at least 14 days from receipt) you might be able to make the call yourself in-hand. That being said, in almost every case I can think of, you would be better advised to wait for an example to come up that is both within your price range and already slabbed and graded. Unless this coin is a screaming deal (30-40% or more below book) and you are comfortable with the fact you might be throwing away your money, it seems that purchasing it would be a roll of the dice at best. Member ANA - EAC - TNA - SSDC - CCT #890 "Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done." -- Louis D. Brandeis |
|
Valued Member
United States
56 Posts |
Quote:At this point, the only (somewhat) definitive solution is to send it to one of the big 3 TPG's for authentication. Unfortunately, that's hard to do with a coin you don't own. If seller has an ironclad returns policy (no questions asked and at least 14 days from receipt) you might be able to make the call yourself in-hand. That being said, in almost every case I can think of, you would be better advised to wait for an example to come up that is both within your price range and already slabbed and graded. Unless this coin is a screaming deal (30-40% or more below book) and you are comfortable with the fact you might be throwing away your money, it seems that purchasing it would be a roll of the dice at best. Yes, thank you for the follow-up. I have come to the same conclusions. Originality is a watchword for me, so I would only consider owning such an example as as an aide in the study of counterfeits. But your posts have me strongly suspecting that it is genuine, but harshly cleaned. In order to get closure though, as well as to keep a potential 'good fake' off the market, I would consider buying it and having it certified. The only downside - being stuck with it when it comes back Genuine Details. I have not joined PCGS (isn't their entry fee around $149 to get submission privileges?) but I guess a second tier TPG would be fine for detection if one wanted to pursue that path. Quote:
...(many fakes) are being made with non-magnetic alloys, and sometimes genuine silver plating, so while the magnet test is highly specific for fakes, it is very non-sensitive, to use a medical analogy. I hope you won't mind if we examine this idea, just to make the study analogy a bit more accessible. It has been 20 years since I studied Epidemiology, lol. This is very useful in discussing counterfeiting, but to use the sensitivity/specificity definitions for the study of coins it is good to first agree that counterfeit == disease. Saying the metal test is "highly specific for fakes", we mean it is good for identifying coins 'without the disease', in other words confirming that a genuine coin is indeed genuine. It is not likely to report a fake when the coin is genuine. Saying the magnet test is non-sensitive means that if a coin is fake the test might miss it. It might well report a coin as 'healthy' when it is a fake. It is prone to false negatives. So the magnet test is not a great way to be sure, if in fact we are presented with a counterfeit. Before looking at the particular cases of non-metallic alloys and silver plating let's first agree on that much. I appreciate your keeping the thread going.  |
|
Page 3 of 3
|
Replies: 36 / Views: 5,243 |
Page 3 of 3
|
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 01/21/2018 7:33 pm
