Please Explain This Unusual Coin Detail

Please upload a full picture of boths coins ..this will help to determend your thoughts.
(obverse/reverse)

So, to clarify: the one on top is supposed to be genuine? Because the top one, with the jagged lettering, looks fake to me.

At this time period, genuine mints were using punches to make the lettering. So all the versions of the same letter (e.g. all the examples of the letter "A") should look the same. That's not what we're seeing in the top coin. All the letters on the top coin look individually carved.

IMHO the first one is a very obvious,bad fake with the second being a worn genuine piece!

I swapped the placement of the full coin pictures since it seemed to be confusing.
Zurie had it right in the initial reply but the original question remains.
What method of making produced those sharp jagged points seen on the letters & numbers on the fake coin?
I'm showing them to show the stark difference compared to the genuine coin.

As I and others stated, these letters appear to be individually hand-carved into a die. The forger has done the best he can with the tools he had, which apparently didn't include a set of letter-punches.

By "hand-carved", I mean picking at a hardened piece of steel with a tiny chisel, to carve out the details needed. The "jagged points" are where he's perhaps tapped a bit too hard, or a larger-than-expected piece of the die has broken away as he is chipping at it.

Genuine coin die-engraving of the period was done on softer steel, which was then forge-hardened once the engraving was complete. The counterfeiter either didn't know this, or didn't know how to harden a piece of soft steel, or didn't have the equipment needed to do so.

I believe sap hit the nail exactly on the head. Those were my thoughts exactly. Looks like the engraver of the fake die had a heavy hand (or used a hammer that was too heavy) and would repeatedly hit too hard around corners, causing excess metal to be removed from the die.

Nice contemporary counterfeit. I have seen many similar to that but do not collect European types. The few that I own I picked up in odd collections or because I saw a new technique that I wanted to study.

Hand engraving a die is difficult and an inexperienced engraver with a minimal array of tools will always bungle the job. These over-cuts or tool slips are even seen but on a smaller extent on genuine US Bust half dollars. Many such slips were used by Overton as means of die identification. All early coinages suffer from the same issues. This is what makes counterfeit collecting so interesting.

From what I see the counterfeiter did not have access to letter punches and the entire die was hand cut. This was a tiny cellar or attic operation carried on in secret by a small group of forgers at best.

Smaller starting cuts (a pattern really) are made by applying pressure to a wooden knob on the end of a fine sharpened tool (scribe) that looks like it might be used by a dentist. After the design is outlined larger gouges and chisels of several shapes are used to create the completed die which is then hardened for striking.

Today forgers use rotary drills or power tools that tap a graver in a forward and back reciprocating action. Both of these tools leave fine clues inside the details that sometimes are transferred to the finished coin.

In the 1700's the tools would have all been hand held and pressed by hand to make a small gouge or taped with a hammer to make a larger or deeper version of the same. Poor lighting, lack of magnification, poor working conditions and of course fear of being caught would all add
to the crudity of the end product.

The coin pair you have is a perfect way to illustrate what a counterfeit looks like and what to watch for when examing coins of that period.

Nice post.