| Author |
 Replies: 13 / Views: 2,005 |
|
|
Valued Member
Netherlands
202 Posts |
Hi there, On a Dutch equivalent of ebay this coin is up for sale. Seller doesn't quote it as a 1901S, just a 1901 quarter. It seems as if he/she has no knowledge of coins as the other advertisements of this seller are only clothing. What do you think about it? Pictures are the sellers and quite small.     |
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
309 Posts |
It is not obvious that this is fake and may well be legitimate. Why not bid as though you would use it as a hole filler until another comes along regardless of authenticity. I see only upside potential if you buy it as though it is fake. Like buying a lottery ticket for a few bucks, who knows? What is the starting bid? If low how much are you willing to lose? Let that be your limit.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
5828 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
292 Posts |
Counterfeit. The 9 in the date is the first giveaway. First thing I look for is catoon-ish date numerals and second for me is the deticles.
Edited by LogPotato
06/06/2015 07:43 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7621 Posts |
Very questionable. Weird, artificial toning around the devices. You see that a lot on the Chinese Morgan dollars. Weird looking mintmark that is way too big. Date positioning appears to be off. |
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
There are only two obverses known for the 1901-S Barber quarter. They are easily differentiated by date position. One is relatively high, with the 1's centered over denticles. The second is low, with the 1's centered over the left edges of denticles. At 400% magnification it becomes pretty clear that the date on this coin does not match either known location. With the understanding that this is probably a $20,000 coin if real....it's not real. http://www.barbercoins.org/1901SBQ.html |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6478 Posts |
The overall relief to the bust is a bit off, it has that artificial toning, I think this is fake, but a GOOD one if so.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6478 Posts |
I like the almost simultaneous post SsDd.  |
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
There is also the fact - as westernsky mentioned - that the mint mark seems too large and too low. It shouldn't extend below the tops of the letters. The patina is deceptive, as it's also how Seated and Barber coinage toned in the sulfur-rich atmosphere of the era. However, I can see clear brushing striations on the obverse in these images, leading me to think it's induced to obfuscate the fakery. |
|
Valued Member
 Netherlands
202 Posts |
Thanks a lot for all your responses so far, I already had my doubts about this coin. The current bid on it is approxametly $15. This site works quite different then ebay as the 'auction' has no fixed endtime. Seller may sell the coin at any given moment regardless of the bidding. I already emailed the seller with the question if he/she has a price in mind for which he/she will sell it. I hope i'll get a respons |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
This has been a great discussion and has proven the value of this forum.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6478 Posts |
 coinfrog |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4416 Posts |
I strongly suspect that the seller purposely avoided the issue of a mintmark, fully expecting that some collectors will go wild, thinking this to be a great buy. Then, should there be any complaints following the sale, the seller will claim ignorance; this, as he/she didn't market this fake as a rare date.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Experienced collectors will know at a glance that such a piece doesn't have the right "look". But an eager, inexperienced collector could take this at face value, so to speak, which is scary.
|
| |
Replies: 13 / Views: 2,005 |
|
Posted 06/06/2015 07:24 am
