For those who have followed this thread - here is an in hand analysis of the 1782 coin. Many of the early comments were correct and some bear repeating.
1. This coin was produced from a transfer image of an Original Boston forgery in my opinion. In my initial post I said:
Quote:
The third picture is VERY interesting. What some people are interpreting as casting bubbles looks like traces of a split surface caused by low temperature rolling.
The splits in the surface of the coin are not actual splits in the metal surface but are a series of indentations that were created when the die was copied from a host that had actual die splits. Whatever method was used to make the copy of this coin did not fill the splits to their full depth. The result resembles a series of pixels which look like a line when viewed at a distance but become distinct indentations when magnified.
In that same post I mentioned:
Quote:
The dimples in and around the DEI
These too are transfers from the host coin and also point to the host being a Boston type counterfeit.
The issue of the dentils stopping short of the edge is accurate - the dentils in several spots end incorrectly.
The coin has poor unreflective surfaces indicative of either casting or a very harsh cleaning.
The comments about the edge made initially by Boris were absolutely correct.
Quote:
Edge doesn't look right (not done by the right edgers, looks weak and "mushy", circles are too "tight" and right side looks "flat" also I couldn't find the second edge overlap).
The details are impressed far too shallow to be real. This is likely due to the addition of the edge AFTER the coin was cast. The forgers have a difficult task when they edge POST "strike". Edging done to the correct depth after a coin has been made USUALLY distorts the faces of the coin. So if they cast the coin first and then distort the dentils by applying a correct edge how do they cover the distortion up? The solution here was a weak edge.
The difficulty of getting the edge right is why I usually use edge errors as a primary diagnostic.
Boris also noted how the side of each circle on the edge was "flat" and that they were spaced too closely together. This is something that I commend him for spotting. He was EXACTLY correct - the edge die was made incorrectly. After examining the edge I believe the edge die was created by repeatedly punching a two segment punch (a circle and a rectangle) along the length of an edger die. The second punch flattens the first the third flattens the second etc etc all the way around. He was also correct that there is ONLY ONE overlap on this coin.
I also have to admit that the first pictures fooled me about the way the coin was made. I thought we were dealing with a strike but that is NOT the case. The transfer molds copied the "effect" of a strike so that in a picture it was deceptive. In person the radial flow lines like the surface cracks show exactly what they are when magnified.
I would confirm that the eroded die crack above the mint mark is a transfer from the host as well.
This coin is an example of a counterfeiter copying a counterfeit. Very interesting - I have a few others that are similar so it tends to prove how often the Boston copies pass as real. Even the counterfeiters do not know.
First Page
Posted 12/08/2011 2:48 pm
