1793 Wreath Cent "smith Enhanced"

From Coin World...



The "Smith Counterfeit" is a curious 19th century numismatic oddity. Coin World's Paul Gilkes wrote in his Dec. 2, 2013, feature on contemporary counterfeits, "The Smith counterfeits were heavily circulated 1793 and 1794 cents that engraver William D. Smith — known as Smith of 1 Ann Street in New York City — re-engraved in the late 1850s and early 1860s to resemble higher grade 1793 cents. Some collectors suggest the Smith counterfeits are not counterfeits at all, but simply alterations to genuine U.S. Mint cents."

Smith would begin with a well-worn host coin, and he extensively reworked both sides. The description notes that the present piece has a weight of only 157.1 grains, versus the standard 208.0-grain weight of a typical 1793 Flowing Hair cent, showing just how much metal was removed during Smith's handiwork.

1793 Flowing Hair, Wreath cent, altered, "Smith Counterfeit," Fine 12
Carrying an estimate of $2,000 and up, it brought $2,585.

The ebay one is a bit different than the one in Coin World. If I knew it was the real thing maybe I would bite on it. Would be a gamble.

Yes, the obverse of the one on ebay looks like it's been jacked with. The patina is way different than the reverse. Plus it doesn't match up at all with the genuine fake lol.

I contacted an EAC member on another forum and his reply was:

You're welcome. Thanks Dave !

Yes Smith "counterfeits are valuable", Is the ebay coin a "Smith" piece? Frankly I don't now. Trying to compare one Smith piece with to another can be misleading because since every one of them was done by hand, and using different varieties of cent for the original starting place, working with coins that had different amounts of wear, every one is going to look different. Add to the that the problem that if someone else did a similar type of re-engraving could you tell that one was done by Smith and one by someone else? If you had the chance to study enough known Smith pieces you might be able to pice up on a stylistic characteristic, but you also have the problem of being sure the pieces you studied were actually Smith pieces. I've only seen three or four pieces that were identified as Smith pieces, but tthey had no proof they were all done by the same person so they could be by different hands as well.

So I would say that while they have an interesting story, I would not pay a premium price for one because there is no way to guarantee that it is what it claims to be.

The coin in question is not a Smith piece. Too crude. This is mine: