realeswatcher It was Virgil Hancock who was accused of calling too many coins counterfeits near the end of his career. I have also heard from some people in the know that it was more because in many cases he had no real facts to back up his positions. He just said they were fake with no explanation at all. It came to be believed that he was substituting guesswork for expertise. Some of his peers attributed it to his failing mental state.
I recall Virgil's column on counterfeits from over 40 years ago. I loved reading it. After he died I bought as many of the counterfeits from his personal collection as I could locate. This was partly because as a kid I really liked and appreciated his work on counterfeits, but I also really enjoyed his stories. In many cases, even back then, I wondered how he knew. He never supplied answers to the questions I had even when I was young. The book he produced with Larry Spanbaur in 1979 is interesting to read but it is a story book not at all a scientific approach.
I learned when I went to college that reasons others could view, test and verify were far more important than opinions stated by "experts". But I also realized that the facts were often more interesting in story form. I also learned that a conservative (cautious) approach is best until a scientific test can replace opinions. That is why I often express opinions couched in terms of alternative possibilities based on test results. It is also why I own many coins that I still classify as "suspects".
In this case, the coin in question is a common type - it is under the radar so to speak because it is thought of as too common to forge. Too low value to reap a big profit. That belief if generally held unfortunately makes it a perfect target. Forgers and counterfeiters want their work to pass undetected. Actually a better way of putting it as unnoticed. They do it by copying common not rare coins. Rare coin copies draw attention and usually fail. Someone recognizes what they are. A smart forger targets coins that generate a profit with little risk of discovery. Greed typically is what gets a forger caught. Just imagine the career of Mark Hoffman if he didn't get too big for his britches and try to go for the multi-million dollar score.
Regarding the reverse being too smooth for an electrotype. I would almost have to see the original being copied to say that. Electrotyping can, and usually does, create an exact replication of a design with every bit of damage visible. It will copy the die setting lines used by the die sinker. It can even copy erosion flow lines. However, it can also create a partial image or one that fades away to one side of the die. You see, electrotype replication is not a slam dunk process it is an art form. The technique itself was only developed after more than a decade of trial and error experimentation.
A damaged host obviously produces a damaged copy but so can a slight error in the alignment of the plates with relation to the target for deposition. A simple failure to stir the electrolyte frequently enough can result is a great plate build up on one part of the coin and virtually no transfer to another part. The solution containing the plating metal is denser before releasing the metal ions and considerably lighter (in density) after releasing the ions. If the electrolyte remains stagnant too long ion depletion results in the depleted electrolyte rising to the top. That is one reason a horizontal position rather than vertical was found to be most expedient to produce a uniform plate by 1844.
Too much or too little voltage across the plates can also effect the end result and quality of the copy because it effects the rate of deposition and in turn the stability of the metallic surface. One way causes the deposition to be too hard and brittle while the other fails to produce a solid surface which erodes easily.
So it is hard to say just why the reverse appears as it does. There are several viable possibilities.
The real problem with this coin, as I see it, is the relation of the two dies to one another while the coin was being struck twice. No one has responded to my question about how these coins were originally struck. That is a problem.
The use of close and closed collar steam presses occurred in Mexico in the last decade of the 19th century. Twnety five years later in 1915 I would expect proliferation of the technology. If a press was employed with a close or closed collar and well fitted chucks to hold the die - I can see no mechanism for producing the end result I see here. One side is double struck but restrained except for rotation. The other side shows no doubling of any kind. This is not a coin that fell away from both dies and rotated. It is not struck once in collar and the other out of collar.
It appears to me that the coin stuck to the reverse die possibly due to the presence of
Cud that had formed at the edge of the die thereby wedging the coin in place against that die. When the cycle completed a second planchet did not feed in as it should have (perhaps the collar partially jammed which could account for that). The dies then came together with a 20-30 degree rotation of the free die ONLY.
Does that make sense to anyone? This is not a hand hammered coin. Or is it?
The only way it could happen is by postulating one chuck was looser than heck allowing the rotation of 20 to 30 degrees to occur in one press cycle. If that were the case (especially if the press was worn or poorly made) then I would expect to see large numbers of die rotation errors being sold. Not double strikes - just rotational errors. I noted exactly zero such examples in the process of assembling 10 examples made from this exact die pair as the
Cud enlarged. Many of these auctions were from Stacks and Heritage. They usually mention rotation. In fact reference books should say that rotated dies exist. I did not find that either.
Forgers love double strikes. I think it is not only in their nature but due to the methods some employ to make small copper coins. These errors are often their undoing. They produce double and triple strikes that are difficult to reconcile with coining methods that should have been used.
You see if I was making these forgeries I would place my dies on the ends of steel rods that fit snugly within an enclosing tube. The anvil die is placed on a short rod and is positioned on a smooth rigid surface. The tube (often a hole drilled the diameter of the coin made in a large steel block) is placed over the anvil die vertically. The planchet (preferably hot) is dropped into the tube (hole in the block) and seated on the anvil die with a wooden dowel (like a loose fitting ramrod). Then the hammer die (mounted on a steel rod longer than the tube's depth) is set into the tube. Next you hit the top of the steel rod with an appropriately sized maul. One blow would normally be enough but sometimes two are needed. Because the dies are not restrained into a fixed alignment with one another a differential rotation often happens on a second strike - especially if the coin sticks to one die.
So how is that the forgers undoing?
Because predictable types of doubling occur depending on the press used. Some forms of double striking are really next to impossible to produce on some presses.
For example, on an open sided screw press the most common double strike involves movement that is NOT rotational but rather is a displacement - horizontally, vertically or both. These double strikes effect both faces and normally the displacements match.
In a close or closed collar coining press two types occur. The most common is the case were the double strike is out of collar because the collar itself fails to move into position on one or the other strike. One full impression and one partial impression results with an arc crossing both faces on the partial strike. This too tends to be of the same magnitude on both faces. The second type is less common but happens when the coin struck on the first impact remains in the coining chamber and simply rotates. This results in double strikes which are rotational only but they involve both dies. Flip over double strikes are rarer but they also do happen.
So if the counterfeiter is hand hammering his coins instead of pressing them - he can accidentally or by intent produce a single sided rotational double strike.
Posted 02/12/2016 08:56 am
