US Gold Error

Note, most importantly, the 1 and 5 in the date, and the relative thickness of the letters of DOLLAR. Another thought is how difficult it would be to alter the tilted 3 into an 8.

Struck counterfeits can be extremely convincing. The fact that there are many many fakes of $1 gold coins, and more importantly the fact that it is impossible to be struck from the mint that way means there is no chance it is a genuine "error". There is still bullion value though, and it is an interesting conversation piece. You can always send it to PCGS if you need additional convincing, and they will tell you exactly what you have.

Is strange that someone that know this kind of errors and knowing that this particular coin was mint between (1849-1845), would create an error in this coin that would be impossible in real conditions to be created naturaly. Do you still wanna see photos or I should gave up?

going to post more pictures so you guys can help me out

________________________________________________________

4 eyes see beter than 2 :D

The history says that this coin had problems with the size, maybe this test was a test to see how it would be in the after years.

Each year's process at the Mint started the year prior, and the actual production run of each year's coin was short enough to allow ample time to prepare the next year's dies. There was no need to project into the future, as there was no lack of time.

The objection to the Type 1's was the very small diameter. That was rectified in the Type 2's by increasing the diameter at the cost of thickness, so as not to change the weight. This problem had been the subject of bitter complaints for many years prior to 1854; trial strikes were made of coins using holes to allow a diameter increase while not adding weight.

In 1853 James Ross Snowden became the new director of the Mint. Aware of the problem with the $1, but being an advocate of making the coin thinner rather than holing it, he instructed James Longacre - the Chief Engraver and designer of the original coin - to execute an entirely new design, unlike the previous trials which had used modifications of the original design. It can be assumed that the new Director wanted to put his mark on the Mint.

Longacre had just completed the design of the new $3 gold, intended to coincide with the Postal Service's 3-cent stamp and the desire to eliminate Fractional Currency, one of which had a 3-cent value. It was a move designed to allow purchasing a sheet of stamps with one coin, while facilitating the ability of the public to exchange Fractional Currency for gold.

This new design is what Longacre chose for the Type 2 Dollar.

Unfortunately, his design for the $1 version used a relief of such depth that the coin was very difficult to strike fully, a flaw large enough to require a second redesign. This was accomplished for the 1856 mintage year, aside San Francisco which struck so few (24,000) that it was obvious they were just making use of a single left-over die. Philadelphia struck fully 1.7 million of the new Type 3, leading to the assumption that the design change was made late-enough in the year so that too few dies for all Mints could be produced. Dahlonega was the only other branch mint to strike these in 1856, and then only from one die pair.

The point to this monologue is this: By 1858, these coins were on their second generation of new design after the Type 1. No need ever existed to strike dates, even as experiments, not concurrent with the year in which they were struck, and indeed that would have been contrary to normal Mint practice.

what can I do to prove that this is an real error?