| Author |
 Replies: 15 / Views: 2,460 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
136 Posts |
A while ago I acquired this piece here. I did post it on the ccf asking if anybody sees something wrong with it Lets go for another try :) i was suspicious of the coins authenticity.... Lets see what do you think authentic ? or not ?   |
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
I'm actually somewhat familiar from spending these 2 Fr coins, but this is an earlier one--and a rather valuable key date. It doesn't look like the typical fake--but I'm hardly an expert on these--perhaps you can point out the issues you see?  |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1949 Posts |
I also don't see anything wrong with a quick glance?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
The only thing I see at all is a multiple collar line with a small amount of central depression.
I am not overly familiar with Swiss coinage standards except to know that varieties are essentially non existent. I wonder why they would use a worn collar?
On an older issue I would suspect a transfer cast die which shrank requiring the addition of 1/2 mm to the die face diameter.
Did you check the die face with a micrometer?
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
136 Posts |
Yes it looks pretty good.
I did submit it to ngc and when it came back the conclusion was an altered date.
Now I looked everywhere except at the date and I didnt see it coming.
After, I tried to find more pieces for comparison and they all dont match up with the date
the last 1 is much thicker than it should be and the spacing between the numbers is wider.
The obverse design has some differences compared to other 1901 but even for authentic pieces
i did notice variations in the dies.
Even though NGC said it is an altered date, I dont know...
What are the indications for that and what technique would have been used to do this.
It looks like a pretty good work in this case.
Now I did find a graded specimen that had the same look of the date.
I have the picture somewhere but I need to hunt for it....
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1949 Posts |
Wow, I don't see that at all...
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
Quote:
After, I tried to find more pieces for comparison and they all dont match up with the date
the last 1 is much thicker than it should be and the spacing between the numbers is wider. I should've considered an altered date, but again...no experience here. But now that you mention it, I do have to wonder how many 1901 2 Fr reverse dies should there be for a mintage of 50,000? Edited by DVCollector
12/20/2014 2:54 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1949 Posts |
I wonder, would it have been an altered 4 into a 1?
|
|
Valued Member
United States
136 Posts |
Quote:
I do have to wonder how many 1901 2 Fr reverse dies should there be for a mintage of 50,000? Yes there should be quite a few wouldnt there |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
Good lesson - so simple and in retrospect so obvious now.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
Quote:
...how many 1901 2 Fr reverse dies should there be for a mintage of 50,000?
I was Yes there should be quite a few wouldn't there? On many coins from this period, 50,000 is an entirely reasonable number to be struck by a single die. But, I realize the Swiss have/had pretty high mint standards. I would think that a low-mintage key coin like this should be matched to a known die pair. It also appears there were dies to strike specimens as well as circulating pieces... Edited by DVCollector
12/20/2014 4:14 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
731 Posts |
Here is a copy of a worn but real piece from my collection. You can see the difference in the spacing of the numerals in the date.   |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1666 Posts |
I remember that coin, along with a few other examples identical to it. It was sold by one of the accounts belonging to our favorite Chinese counterfeit distributors. Bob, you know which one I mean ;)
The fact that NGC felt it was an altered date on a genuine coin just goes to show where this is headed.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
Huh--so you mean that coin is entirely a fake? I should have paid more attention when I had these coins in my pocket (later ones of course, but similar design)  |
|
Valued Member
United States
136 Posts |
Quote:
I remember that coin, along with a few other examples identical to it. It was sold by one of the accounts belonging to our favorite Chinese counterfeit distributors. Bob, you know which one I mean ;)
The fact that NGC felt it was an altered date on a genuine coin just goes to show where this is headed
Thats interesting... I would think thats possible... Except the fact that the date looks different than what it should I dont see much indications of an altered date, then again I dont really know much about this matter.... However if the chinese can make high quality fakes why mess up on the date... Edited by GEKO
12/22/2014 02:32 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1666 Posts |
I saw just a few examples of this coin back around the time this one was sold, if I remember correctly about a year and a couple months or so ago. The fact that I have not seen any since, and I keep a sharp eye on their various accounts, tells me that they gave up because this one was flawed and comparatively easily identifiable. Some of their best fakes, mostly German States thalers and double thalers and some older Russian roubles, as well as small gold coins, they have continued selling unabated for years now. It's a trial and error process I suppose... eliminate the ones that get picked up and continue with the ones that pass most often. Examples of this coin here have only subtle indication, like the second 1 in the date and the edge inconsistency that swamperbob mentioned. I bet it would get past most collectors, but apparently not enough to keep it off the radar.
Edited by Numismat
12/22/2014 08:53 am
|
| |
Replies: 15 / Views: 2,460 |
|
Posted 12/20/2014 2:25 pm
