Fake 1895-O Barber Dime Sold For $766 Ebay

There's always at least one in the bunch. This person rubbed me the wrong way, but I didn't step into his mess. I look forward to Redshed's rebuttal, if he wasn't too offended by the "arrogant expert".

SPP-Ottawa,

It was JimmyD's image back on page 2 pointing out two differences---the one that triggered me was the leaf - S which I recalled reading about new hubs being introduced around the turn of the 20th century.

In fact, I believe a Barber Coin Collectors' Society article published in one of the journals this year may have talked about the hub(s).

Anyway, the information about the hubs has been known for 25+ years at least.

Why it isn't "common knowledge" could be that Barber dimes are rather plain compared to the later Mercurys. Most collectors are content with a single example. Or the size makes it harder to see the fine details.

I don't know if someone has written specifically about using the hub differences as a method of detecting counterfeits.

A couple of great resources about Barber coins can be found on the BCCS website under Education & Resources

The three books written in the 1990s are found here http://www.barbercoins.org/Links.shtml

Contemporary Counterfeit images http://www.barbercoins.org/CCounterfeits.shtml

Never stop learning Coinfrog.... that is what is awesome about this hobby!!

I too am late to welcome Redshed.

So to our community my friend! I'm happy you took the time to respond. Don't let one Donkey make you think less of us. They never last long.
I should have done this first before trying to rehab our short-lived 'expert'.

Great post, kbbpll !! This also-non-expert is glad to see you back !!

Sorry for reopening this, but sometimes I have to get to the bottom of it, and I do like detective work. Perhaps someone finds this useful down the road. I had noticed a couple other differences in the veins of the leaves on the reverse, which got me thinking. Is it a real coin, just retooled? But as noted, the obverse is wrong. Did the counterfeiter retool the reverse of a master coin prior to making a transfer die? But counterfeiters are lazy!

Turns out, as far as I can tell, the reverse did in fact change, in 1900. Given that the obverse changed in 1901, my conclusion is that this is a post-1901 O mint coin counterfeited with an altered date.

Below is a 1895-O PCGS MS66 on the left, versus a 1901-O PCGS MS64 on the right. (Edit: to really see, you'll have to enlarge the image.)
Details:
1. As noted above, the center vein on 1895 originated mid-lobe on the overlapping leaf. On the 1901 it has a more horizontal direction and originates between lobes of the overlapping leaf.
2. The two branching veins appear staggered from the main vein on the 1895. On the 1901 they appear to branch from the main vein at the same spot.
3. This vein originated almost below the overlapping leaf on the 1895. On the 1901 it originates well above the overlapping leaf.
4. There are more, and rounded, kernels in the center of the cob on the 1895. There are fewer, and rectangular, kernels on the 1901.

You can see these other differences on the comparison image posted previously.

Some real authority on the Barber dime series has undoubtedly already noticed the reverse die change. It's interesting to me that the reverse changed in 1900, and the obverse changed in 1901.

Great thread. Sounds like I missed some excitement. At least I can offer congrats to Coinfrog on his milestone of posts.

I suspect that, despite the silvery color of my fake "1894-S," it has little, if any, silver content. The lighter, possibly softer-than-silver metal may have contributed to its poor strike. It is about 10% underweight which, to my experience seems consistent with most of the modern day fakes; these, often running 10-20% under. I expect that, if tumbled and otherwise subjected to artificial wear, this otherwise, seemingly uncirculated fake would be far more deceptive.