Let's Play Which One Is The Counterfeited Coin

The first one is fake! I think :-) and my logic is the lack of details.

First is the bad tomato.

I'm gonna guess both are fake. I don't like the denticles being different lengths on the first coin and the second coin seems to have a silver wash on it.

The first is fake without any doubt. All the small details show it.

I was fairly sure it was the second until I looked at some of the detail pictures. Then I could see why others said one.

Truth be told I do not like either but for entirely different reasons. I will be interested to hear more about the two coins weight density etc.

These are collared steam press strikes made from fully hubbed dies - so they are not anything I really care for.

I have revised my position slightly. I have from my perspective determined that BOTH posted coins must be numismatic forgeries produced using somewhat different methods. I believe they are both made recently and that they may possibly be silver or debased silver. At least the high grade coin was made to fool a more select order of collectors. Even though it is better there are tell-tale signs of forgery.

I did this examination using the procedure I always followed when addressing a coin for which an initial decision was being appealed at eBay. At eBay an initial decision based on one or two votes could be reversed or upheld if all of the members reached an agreement together after considering both sides.

There is one area that sums up perfectly where the problems lie and what the difference in manufacture was.

See below:



Look at this enlargement of a small section of the obverse near the edge of the coin. The coin at the far left is a genuine coin beyond any dispute. It shows how England actually prepared their dies for the Crown coin in 1887 and how those dies were employed.

The other two are the examples shown in this thread. Each has one or more characteristics of a forgery.

These are obviously not all of the points of failure (I always keep some in reserve which have NOT been published). The errors I will refer to are very well known and have been written about many times.

The genuine coin was struck with a die that was NOT lathed totally smooth beyond the design perimeter which ended at the termination of the fence or rail road track like design. Below see a sketch where # 1 is the slightly rough die surface # 2 is the edge of the design which was hubbed into the die and # 3 is the inside circle of the design.




Compare this to the other two coins. They are made differently. First look at the worn coin - the pickets in the fence are irregular in shape and are not sharp on their edges also the connection to the inner circle is ragged. This looks like a transfer image die that had some of the weaker details recut on the die itself. The circle itself has similar problems that go well beyond simple wear. The die face at the edge of the die was not lathed just as in was on the genuine coin. However the reeds on the worn coin appear to be very irregularly spaced compared to the reeds on the genuine coin.




Next review the higher grade coin. First of all note the lathed portion of the die face that extends half way through the outer rim. This is seen on many dies where the image involved a plastic matrix that shrunk slightly and necessitated a slight diameter increase. Also note the impression of the edge of the collar die. That simply should not be present unless the incorrect collar was being used. Second notice the shape of the reeds - they are not the same as the genuine coin. Finally where is the inner circle?



Next I want to focus on one letter the E in REG and how it was impressed on the coin. Compare the three E's. The pictures are in the same order with the genuine coin at the left.




Here the fact that the worn coin is with no doubt a counterfeit is very clear. The edges of the letters are NOT sharp where the letter meets the die face. This should never be effected by wear (it is protected) and yet the worn coin's transition is horrible. In places you can see a meniscus. The higher grade coin has a broken E but the brakes do not coincide with any typical die wear patterns like wear bifurcation. No here the problem is very small chipping of the plastic impression when the host coin was removed from the plastic impression.

A quick review shows well over 20 points on the high grade coin that conclusively tell me it is a forgery. The worn coin has literally too many to count.

Wow Swamperbob, I am impressed !!

If the second crown is a counterfeit, then we need to review all others we have.

Swamperbob, very impressive work! You are a huge asset to this community! Even if I had the expertise, I would not have had the patience to put together a post so detailed and precise.