1795 US Dollar - ANACS - Fake?

Here is more info on that coin..

"The 1794 and 1795 Flowing Hair silver dollars are known for adjustment marks, usually found along the rim. Denticles are occasionally pushed up in places due to the edge lettering machine. The quality of the some of the planchets used was inferior. All of these qualities should be observed when considering a purchase or sale of this coin type. There was difficulty in striking these first silver dollars to a presentable quality. Look for a weakly struck obverse at about 6 o'clock with corresponding weakness on the reverse at the same point. The press used to produce these coins was actually meant for half dollar production. The dies were cut into shallow relief to accommodate striking, but this did not always succeed."

"The dollar's "third side," the edge, carries the inscription HUNDRED CENTS ONE DOLLAR OR UNIT, with decorations separating the words."


For what is is worth....

Sorry Bryan, I disagree, the camera angle and plastic case will play tricks. I say it is the same coin.

MM

It is possible of cropping and pasting into ANACS holder.

TKC!

I don't know anything about cast counterfeits and don't have any books on the subject, but one thing I noticed is quite a few little craters/bubbles in areas where one wouldn't expect to find too many circulation marks. Namely, look to the right of America on the reverse shot of the coin "outside" the holder. Don't know if this could be indicative of a cast coin? But, maybe some pitting like that is to be expected on a coin over 200 yrs. old? There are quite a few examples of pitting like that all over the coin. I would think that cast counterfeits would be more crudely done, though. (you'll notice I'm not committing myself here!)

While I can't see myself ever purchasing a coin from China, I've been assured that there are reputable ebay sellers over there, though they are few and far between. An expert that I know who collects oriental coinage has found a couple that he deals with on a regular basis and he's been very happy.

That said, I don't feel that it is fair to label ALL Chinese sellers as scammers. I understand why it is tempting to do so. It is true that many of the fakes on ebay came from there originally (some are now being resold by US sellers), but there are exceptions. I still believe that this coin is real and is the same one that is in the slab.

I do see that the scratches are in the same places on both pictures. It could be the same coin, but encapsulated after he cleaned it? The pics could have been taken at different times.

Well, there have been a lot of good comments on this coin. I wanted to take the time to get to the bank and retrieve my copy before I made an actual comment on what this is. I wanted to see how closely my coin matched this one. My copy was a "pattern" casting made by the Beijing group of counterfeiters early on before they started high volume production of this forgery. Mine was the third that I nad encountered and the first I could actually buy at "counterfeit" price level. The other copies were owned by individuals who were positive they were real. It was one of the forgers first attempts at creating a precisely cast duplicate of an early US dollar in silver.

My copy has the reversed edge lettering - quite an error (alos indicating an early trial), but they can't read English well so you can't fault them for getting it backwards. So my coin is NOT identical, but it is definitely a close relative of this coin.

There are a few facts that can be derived with nearly 100% certainty from the scans posted. First a comment, I will use the word die and mold here as being one and the same thing. That is because, some forgers are known to use the same plastic die/mold for both striking and casting purposes. As a die, a dental plastic transfer impression has a limited life even when they use 0.999 fine silver heated to a near plastic state. But even after the impression splits - it can still be used as a mold - and it comes with the added benefit of a "New die crack". How much more original do you want?

The coin in the pictures and the ANACS encapsulated coin are either (1)one in the same coin, (2)they were made from the same transfer die or (3)they are a Host and duplicate pair. Anything else is simply IMPOSSIBLE.

Please check the location of the nicks and bag marks on both sets of pictures - they are in fact identical. The pictures of the raw coin show far better detail so you will see only the bigger features through the slab. Some of the most notable ones are in and around the date. But also check the bigger bag marks in the fields and you should be able to spot the match. This is actually the technique I use to prove that many other issues are fakes and to trace them as originating from the same source. I keep a log of coins and scans posted by the Chinese and compare nicks. A match between two sellers is proof positive of a linkage to the same source.

Because the wear on each coin is unique (like a finger print) the larger marks are often used to diagnose forgeries quickly. There are cases, however when strategically placed chop marks have been used to eliminate the telltale traces. A cruder technique is to simply add a small dent that obliterates a large feature.

That accounts for the duplicate nicks and dents - but what about the raised "pimples" that are so obvious on the raw coin? I don't recall too many comments about the raised marks, but you need to think of raised marks on the coin as being recesses in the die and conversely that dimples in the coin are raised spots on the die. Holes in the die are a feature of worn dies (old dies) this one still rtains a new look so the raised lumps and lines are out of place.

Other than cases where you are dealing with ONE coin, you get a match of dents and lumps only when you have casts made from the same mold - OR when you are seeing pictures of the original host coin and one of the cast duplicates. That last option is what I am guessing could be the case here. I think that the coin in the ANACS holder is (or was) real. ANACS claims that it is impossible to switch out a coin from one of their slabs. I have had discussions along that line with graders but I get the company line that it is impossible. Well...........

New duplicating techniques used in China are definitely capable of making a copy without many of the old clues seen on castings. In my opinion, the coin NOT encapsulated is a cast copy (injection molded) using a plastic transfer mold. I can not believe that ANACS slabbed the cast version because about 4 months ago minimum I discussed the existance of this 1795 Dollar fake with a grader at ANACS and he confirmed that they had already seen it.

The newer casting technique does no damage to the original coin - except perhaps to slightly alter the color and slightly impare the mint luster (so cleaned on the holder is normal). After they have been used (as a master hub) - the counterfeiters simply have the originals slabbed and resell them to recover part of their initial investment. Has anyone ever noticed how many encapsulated coins are sold by the Chinese forgers right AFTER they introduce a new forgery type to the market? Have you also noted that the fakes invariably start at some LOW number like 99 cents or $ 9.99 but that the real encapsulated host coins start right near the correct price!

Regarding the comments indicating that the coin's surface is too pock marked - RIGHT ON. That is one of the worst features I see on this one. The surface pores are very similar to my copy.