| Author |
 Replies: 29 / Views: 1,804 |
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
273 Posts |
Burfle23: There are differences, but it is apparent that the source for it was the same as your coin; the Heritage example is a later die state with repairs and tooling. It also shows ill-defined denticles and devices, and probably was acid-treated. It just doesn't look "die struck". Why strike them when you can cast them from a pretty good host (but the host would have to be from the repaired die), and get them into holders just the same... this isn't a knock against HA; been a Steve Ivy customer for almost 50 years now. This just proves that we sometimes have to rely on our own instincts.
Edited by Oldgrouchyguy
12/06/2022 3:12 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
752 Posts |
Quote:
Why strike them when you can cast them from a pretty good host (but the host would have to be from the repaired die), and get them into holders just the same... i wasnt aware of any cast large cents in TPG holders. do you happen to have an example? usually with cast coins the weight is off by a pretty significant amount and the specific gravity is always wrong. I dont think its possible to cast copper and have it have the same weight, density and volume as struck copper.
I collect low grade large cents. I currently have >230 Sheldon varieties and >235 middle date Newcomb varieties.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
262 Posts |
I am not aware of one either @CarrsCoins; and what we are seeing with this one may well be more the result of environmental damage... The handful of large cents that made it into genuine TPG holders in my collection were all struck and made from similar copper (a couple exact) as genuine coins. |
|
Valued Member
United States
273 Posts |
CarrsCoins and Burfle23: oh, I'm getting old but I do remember a national EAC meeting, where Jack Robinson (pretty sure) was passing around dental cast Late Dates, all in **** holders
Edited by Oldgrouchyguy
12/07/2022 7:43 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
273 Posts |
Burfle23: If the environment involved acid, I agree.
Edited by Oldgrouchyguy
12/07/2022 7:55 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
262 Posts |
The posted example appears to match the genuine more closely  than to the counterfeit one...  A 2nd bad example:  Edited by burfle23
12/22/2022 4:12 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
273 Posts |
On the example which I posted: you can easily see the recut R stand, the chin has been cropped-the tool marks in the die are easy to see, the hairline on the forehead is horribly recut, and the broken leaf tip under I has been repaired . The mess above the bust at the drapery line is there, the filled-in A in States and the fault line S-O remain the same. None of these are on original-die struck coins. The example I show is from later, retooled dies.
Edited by Oldgrouchyguy
12/22/2022 3:29 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10099 Posts |
Can see where the die crack would have been / is at on the reverse of your coin. The crack and start of field displacement above ATES is present in Noyes' plate for S161, latterly owned by Dan Holmes, and that coin Mr. Noyes considered early-mid die state. In the mid-late die state that crack widens and a large rim Cud develops above TES. By the time you get to TDS, there is a large area of swelling that obliterates ..D S.. and almost reaches the 1st T in STATES. In my (non-expert) opinion the appearance of the letters on the reverse of your coin is more likely due to a combination of environmental damage, die condition and/or low planchet quality. Mr. Young is pretty much the stone cold expert on all things related to counterfeit copper and has probably seen more on the Dark Side than I'll ever see in my lifetime. Longhorn Coins & Exonumia 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
273 Posts |
That may be, but the hairline is one Elvis would have been proud of, the recut R stand doesn't exist on any S-161, neither does the filled A in STATES-which is also on Jack's ctft and no other example of the variety. The hair design under ER is comical (especially for the supposed grade)-and is the same as on Jack's example  Edited by Oldgrouchyguy
12/22/2022 4:09 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
262 Posts |
I suppose it is just best to agree to disagree; I am looking at the same images. I did update my posted ones to try to show the angle of the bottom of the "R" relative to the "T"; quite different from yours and the documented counterfeits, And the hair looks different between the two as well to my eyes. Maybe the acid you claim was used had an effect on both. When I first saw your post I was excited we had another example of the ones we have documented, and although there are similarities there are ones to a genuine coin as well. There are too many differences and not enough matches to the known counterfeits to say it is from the same "dies" in my opinion.  Doesn't mean there isn't something suspect about the posted example but I can't match it to these others by the images. Edited by burfle23
12/22/2022 4:29 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
273 Posts |
burfel23: You can see where the tip of the leaf under I was repaired on mine, and the recut stand of R in LIBERTY shows the foot of your coin very well under the recut (and that recut exists nowhere else on any S-161 known so far). The dies on mine seem obviously to be the retooled efforts of the dies of yours. I think the example I've shown has been really mucked-up: acid, emery cloth, etc. And, like discussed before, that filled A in STATES is on both of the coins presented as counterfeit, and not on any other seen S-161, LDS included. The hairline at the forehead on my example looks like it was recut with an axe. The patterns seen under ER do not match the Mint-made coin, but yours matches mine. That's what I see  Edited by Oldgrouchyguy
12/23/2022 1:56 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
262 Posts |
I have no sand casting experience so I am trying to understand what is going on here! The top image is obviously your posted one, the center is the known source for the counterfeit dies and the lower a counterfeit submitted to PCGS. On yours, the "strike" appears different as seen in the bottoms of several of the letters of LIBERTY. The bottom of the "B" of yours doesn't appear to match the other two, which do. The bottom of the "E" doesn't appear to either. The "R" is closer to the source example and obviously not the tooled one of the counterfeit. Top right of your "L" appears to be missing. So as I understand it you maintain the counterfeit die was retooled to correct those things? And then a cast made instead of striking like the others? Oh, I also notice the dentils at the top of the obverse don't appear to match the other two either.  And the "filled A" cited on yours isn't clear in either of the known counterfeits (bottom 2) or the genuine source; looks weak in the lower left fake due to weak strike and low def image in my opinion.  Edited by burfle23
12/24/2022 05:04 am
|
|
Valued Member
United States
262 Posts |
Still looking at this Oldgrouchyguy, but does this example show the recutting of the "R" you are seeing on the HA coin?  |
|
Valued Member
United States
273 Posts |
Hi Burfle23: No-the left foot of the R was originally askance, and had been "corrected". You can see the diagonal of the original foot under the "straight" recut. This shows it a little bit better. And, Yes the pictures of this were shared with a couple other EAC/C4 people whom I've known since the '80s, and they agree that it's "off". The tooling at the chin is a pretty good give-away on that  Edited by Oldgrouchyguy
12/27/2022 2:51 pm
|
|
Replies: 29 / Views: 1,804 |
|
Posted 12/07/2022 6:19 pm
