Fake 1895-O Barber Dime Sold For $766 Ebay

Thanks for following up, MeadowviewCollector. I have communicated with BCCS about obtaining the back issue you mentioned, and there is interest in an article regarding the third reverse design, which would be a few months if it happens. It appears from your description of the hubs article, and from John at BCCS, that the "old" and "new" reverse nomenclature is still in use. I'm convinced there is really a "Type 1A" from 1900-1905.

I think the bottom line regarding counterfeits for novices like me is learning to recognize the "thin ribbon" ("old") versus "thick ribbon" ("new") on the reverse. The majority of counterfeits I've seen so far have the thick ribbon on pre-1901 coins, which is flat out wrong regardless of whether a third reverse design gets accepted. Then learn to recognize the difference in the prominent vein of the leftmost leaf, to decide whether a "thin ribbon" reverse is truly 1892-1899. Sometimes I find it difficult to decide thin or thick ribbon on a worn or poorly faked coin, but the left leaf vein remains prominent. I'll attach some images to try to further clarify my "Type 1A".
Left leaf - 1895-O vs 1901-S (these differences are the same going from 1899 to 1900, I just picked 1895 and 1901 because of image quality)

Right leaf

Kernels

OK I am just a beginner here and I see everyone picking apart all the little bits but the basic thing that hit me was the curve of the base of the neck. I put the two coins together in paint and drew circles that matched the curves and then put them together at the bottom and the "fake" is a heck of a lot more curved. Is this relevant? Shouldn't they be the same curve? I mean it just stuck right out at me. You can see the different curves as lines down below

Another identifying feature is the 5 in the date.

On the real one (the one on the right) the 5 is nearly closed with the upright almost touching the ball. Also the upright is straight and a straight line down the left edge of the upright almost passed through the center of the ball. On the fake the 5 is open, the upright "kicks out" to the left at the bottom, and a straight line down the left edge would pass through the left edge of the ball.

The inside of the loops of the 8 and the top of the 9 on the fake are just about round, on the genuine they are ovals.

Those are all really good points about the date. It looks "chidish" when you really focus on it. Honestly though I'd just learn to recognize the left leaf vein and thick ribbon on reverse, since from what I've seen on the no-no site it immediately eliminates 90% of the pre-1900 fakes, as with this one.
Here's certified F12 1899-O versus 1900-O demonstrating how you can quickly spot the transition markers on well worn coins.

And here's OP reverse, for "eye training". :)