| Author |
 Replies: 10 / Views: 2,032 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
246 Posts |
Hello all, Just wanted to ask opinions here to see if I am missing something. I sold this earlier this month and now the buyer says it is not genuine because it doesn't sound right and is to thick. I am accepting the return regardless, just wanted any expert opinion. Also I will post through results once I have it back in hand, to include dimensions, weight, and XRF analysis. I am not sure of its VAM but I think I see quite heavy doubling in the TA of states. Thanks   |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2373 Posts |
The 8 in the date is like no other I've seen on an original. The surface looks a little grainy also. The TA in STATES is not a recognized VAM to me. I would say its a fake. nlp |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7390 Posts |
Edited by Cascade
05/22/2015 07:42 am
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
246 Posts |
Agreed that The date looks off all together, as the 9 does not match either the open 9 or the closed 9.
I cannot say that I gave this one any extra attention as it was such a common date and condition, however I am saddened if this did slip by me.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7390 Posts |
Ya, I didn't catch that bottom serif of the 9, how it totally clashes into the 9 loop. It's early
|
|
Valued Member
United States
215 Posts |
If it turns out to be fake, just wondering who passed it to you?
|
|
Valued Member
United States
246 Posts |
It came out of a nearly complete date and mint mark Morgan set in the double Dansco Albums that I picked up a month ago.
The keys 93-s 85-CC ect. went off to PCGS and all graded fine, I assume it just got slipped to the collector that I purchased it from, but curious as to this common date fake.
I am almost certain it is from my pictures and will update once I have it back and can get the specifics of it.
I do know it was not magnetic.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
I'm not confident in this coin's authenticity. The date digits, orientation and slant are disturbing. The doubling on the T is too strong not to have been recorded. The overall weakness of the reverse strike especially turns me off. The minute one looks close, odd things start appearing. I think you'll find it too light.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1551 Posts |
Well there are only 4 far date die pairs in the 1891 O Morgan dollar series. This coin is not any one of the known VAM's! That could mean that its a new variety, but it's not! Based on the way the lettering is seen as well as the type of numbers used in the date. This coin looks to be a class 3 China counterfeit. I am 99.9% sure of this based on the look of this coin. It looks like an A Typical cast type counterfeit. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10038 Posts |
Quote:
I cannot say that I gave this one any extra attention as it was such a common date and condition, however I am saddened if this did slip by me. Not unusual. Here is an older thread of an 1879 fake compared to a legit one. I deliberately bought the fake from China a few years ago to learn how to ID the fakes. Pics in the thread include overlays and also pics of the edges side-by-side. The reeding clearly shows its a fake. https://goccf.com/t/119357 |
|
Valued Member
United States
194 Posts |
first glance it's a fake !! Look closer and again it's not real. Sorry it's a cast copy. Light on weight I bet
|
| |
Replies: 10 / Views: 2,032 |
|
Posted 05/22/2015 07:40 am
