| Author |
 Replies: 27 / Views: 9,533 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
9104 Posts |
Doesn't look right to me, especially denticles and edge sharpness. I'm no expert on these.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1554 Posts |
 First question one must ask is : "Why would anyone wanna fake a coin that has virtually no value accept for bullion value.?" The 1936 silver dollar is a very common coin especially in circulated grades and has little value until it reaches MS-65/66 grades. I think counterfeiters tend to create fakes in the key date issues and ultra rare low availability issues such as the 1921 series. So I would have no reason to believe this coin would be a fake, or some poor counterfeiter simply had too much time on their hands! Glenn  |
|
Valued Member
Canada
307 Posts |
Quote:
Nice Coin... looks O.K. to me..  still looking forward to hearing the weight...BTW without having it in hand I agree with you about the grade...it is a solid EF but AU not sure about that. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
629 Posts |
It looks real to me. but in my opinion, you spent too much money for the coin.
|
|
New Member
 Canada
9 Posts |
ok, well the coin arrived and I have some fresh photos of it. In most cases, the fears I had from the picture turned out to be the product of a bad scan, apart from the denticles which are really very faint on the obverse. Looking at it in-hand, it is definitely a typical .800 silver coin, though I guess that can be faked as well. I haven't weighed it yet as I can't find my old scale, so I ordered a new one and will of course post weight when the scale gets here - lol. The denticles are definitely there, but look worn down to almost nothing - which is odd, because the rest of the coin has nearly zero wear apart from typical bag marks and the odd nick from minor circulation. There is virtually no rubbing wear. What it look like to me is that there was an issue with the blank before it was struck in that the rolled lip edge didn't form well on the obverse and perhaps this was also coupled with a worn or oil-fouled die. What do you guys think? I took a few without the flash, the coppery look is from crappy camera white-balance. In-hand there is only a hint of toning. the bright image of the obverse is with flash. Reference photos are from CoC 2011 29th Ed.      Edited by Claven2
03/14/2011 4:52 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
4944 Posts |
If I purchased the coin, I think I would take the sellers refund.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1733 Posts |
looks cleaned or whizzed in that bottom photo. Might explain your soft denticles there.
|
|
New Member
Canada
9 Posts |
Quote:
If I purchased the coin, I think I would take the sellers refund. Mind if I ask why? Do you think it's a counterfeit, or you just don't think the condition is worthy of a collection? Denticles apart, the coin is quite nice in-hand. If not fake, I would be inclined to keep it. And no, it's not cleaned. It's a normal circulated coin - the white balance on the camera isn't showing that very well though. As for value, CoC lists EF at $35 and AU at $40. I figure this coin is a solid EF and it doesn;t bother me to overpay by $3 IF the coin isn't fake. |
|
New Member
Canada
9 Posts |
ok, I just weighed it - 23.29g. What do you guys think? Close enough? For comparison in case of potential scale error, a known AU55 1935 dollar weighed 23.31g on the same scale.
Edited by Claven2
03/17/2011 6:16 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1733 Posts |
Close enough and well within the margin of error both the scale and the coin.
|
|
New Member
Canada
9 Posts |
ok, well then I am leaning towards being a real coin - what's odd though is that the portrait on the obverse has almost no detectable wear yet the denticles are soo poorly pronounced...
How can that happen?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
4944 Posts |
Quote:If I purchased the coin, I think I would take the sellers refund. Quote:
Mind if I ask why? I personally do not like that the denticles are so weak on the reverse. Quote:
Do you think it's a counterfeit? I agree with glenzy1 on this, I don't think that counterfeiters would be spending their time on a common 1936 dollar. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1733 Posts |
The strike on the coin is poor, it happens all the time, that's why strike is a factor in grading. For example it's really rare to find a well struck early nickel as the metal and working with it was new, they didn't all turn out looking so great.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
9872 Posts |
It's not a fake.
You didn't overpay by a lot
If you like it keep it
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
248 Posts |
-Claven2----I agree with Ugly and DBM that it looks real and agree why fake a lower value coin. IMO, at first blush looked cleaned/polished the patina doesn't look right! But beauty is in the eye of the beholder! ---I have also seen that same rim issue before on other coins were the denticles fade out at places like a misalignment / double take / overlap, die wear? ---Short of knowing what to call it? I think Ugly nails it with poor strike. ---You say you paid $38.50, the coin is at best AU but questionable for reason's previously mentioned. So you paid full book for a raw un-certified coin. $45 being certified for AU in 2010 Charlton! **Note the note at bottom of page (pricing) one must keep that in mind when buying! I think some forget or miss that fact! [URL="http://img717.imageshack.us/i/charltonpriceincludes.jpg/]  [/URL] --- If it were me id send it back, you can do better for the same money! --- But for myself, this is one more reason why I would not buy on ebay! --- A picture only tells half of the story literally! and can mislead with a false image of it. Now add the stress of possible fakes on the market. --- I like a coin in hand, if I buy it! Less doubt or concern IMO
Edited by commoncents13
03/19/2011 06:56 am
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 27 / Views: 9,533 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 03/09/2011 07:46 am
