Coin Community Family of Web Sites
Coin, Banknote and Medal Collectors's Online Mall Shop for APMEX Bullion on eBay!Specializing in Modern Numismatics Shop CCF Members on eBay! Vancouvers #1 Coin and Paper Money Dealer 300,000 items to help build your collection! Royal Canadian Mint products, Canadian, Polish, American, and world coins and banknotes.








Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?


This page may contain links that result in small commissions to keep this free site up and running.

Welcome Guest! Registering and/or logging in will remove the anchor (bottom) ads. It's Free!

Counterfeit Detection: 1895-O Barber Dime

To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous TopicReplies: 7 / Views: 883Next Topic  
Press Manager
Learn More...
CCFPress's Avatar
United States
1420 Posts
 Posted 03/22/2024  1:49 pm Show Profile   Bookmark this topic Add CCFPress to your friends list Get a Link to this Message Number of Subscribers
NGC - A fuzzy, porous appearance and misshapen date helped identify this 1895-O Barber dime as a counterfeit.

The Barber dime series, minted from 1892 to 1916, has only a handful of semikey to key dates. The 1894-S, struck in proof format only with a mintage of just 24 pieces, is undoubtedly the most famous, but this coin is not collected as part of a circulation issue set. The most challenging of these circulation strikes is the 1895-O, which had the lowest mintage of any regular issue with 440,000 coins produced.

According to the NGC US Coin Price Guide, the 1895-O trades for $570 in VG, $2,610 in XF and $5,730 in MS 60. Although counterfeit or altered date and mintmarked Barber dimes are not particularly common, NGC graders did identify a fake 1895-O in a recent submission. A comparison of this counterfeit with a genuine example reveals several significant differences.

Counterfeit-Detection:-1895-O-Barber-Dime

Perhaps the most obvious issue is the weakness of the design elements. Liberty's head nearly blends into the fields and all of the letters and devices have a fuzzy, porous appearance. A genuine example, unless extensively circulated, would exhibit much sharper details. There are also some unusual missing parts of the design, likely a result of poorly made counterfeit dies crumbling. Large pieces of the T in UNITED and the right reverse rim are missing, along with smaller pieces of other letters.

A less obvious problem with this coin is the misshapen date, but this is yet another diagnostic to prove its nefarious origins. The coin has been artificially toned to disguise the fact that it is a fake—a common tactic, especially when it is an otherwise low quality fake. When you look past that, however, it is a relatively easy counterfeit to spot.

Read More: Counterfeit Detection Series

Check out 1895-O Barber Dimes on ebay.
Bedrock of the Community
Learn More...
HondoB's Avatar
United States
24878 Posts
 Posted 03/22/2024  2:46 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add HondoB to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
A one-look fake. Thanks for the article!
Inordinately fascinated by bits of metal with strange markings and figures
Bedrock of the Community
Coinfrog's Avatar
United States
94367 Posts
 Posted 03/22/2024  4:37 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Coinfrog to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Agree, this one is pretty obvious.
Pillar of the Community
kbbpll's Avatar
United States
4233 Posts
 Posted 03/22/2024  8:27 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add kbbpll to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Actually to me the most obvious feature is that it's the wrong reverse type. The circled features did not look like this until 1900-1901 (the thicker right ribbon in 1901, the others in 1900). It appears that the obverse is also 1901+ but it's difficult to tell. Sure, it's kind of a one-look fake regardless, but NGC should be aware of the more obvious design flaws.
Counterfeit-Detection:-1895-O-Barber-Dime
Bedrock of the Community
IndianGoldEagle's Avatar
United States
36415 Posts
 Posted 03/23/2024  11:54 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add IndianGoldEagle to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Mushy looking with a cast appearance.
Pillar of the Community
jpsned's Avatar
United States
2200 Posts
 Posted 03/23/2024  1:28 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add jpsned to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
The 1894-S, struck in proof format only with a mintage of just 24 pieces, is undoubtedly the most famous, but this coin is not collected as part of a circulation issue set.


Actually, the 1894-S dimes were not struck as proofs. They were struck as normal business strikes; that is, no special polishing of the dies took place. With so few coins struck, they all ended up looking very good, but they weren't technically proofs.

As the 1894-S rarity began to achieve fame, numismatists wrote that the coins were proofs so as to give the coin better and more fashionable publicity. This myth has been handed down through time and become generally accepted by the numismatic community.
Pillar of the Community
kbbpll's Avatar
United States
4233 Posts
 Posted 03/23/2024  2:41 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add kbbpll to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
That is an interesting tangent. Roger Burdette argues that most of the so-called "branch mint proofs" are not proof coins, because the branch mints did not have the equipment to produce them (high-pressure medal press). He speculates that there are true proof coins with mint marks, but that these were produced in Philadelphia (on the medal press) and shipped along with the dies as samples for the coiner to compare against. I'm not sure if there is evidence to back up the latter. I've looked at a lot of die shipment records on NNP and have never seen coins mentioned as having been shipped along with the dies.

A blurb on Heritage agrees regarding the 1894-S dimes, but adds "Debate concerning this point is likely unimportant, however, for regardless of whether the dimes are classified as proofs or business strikes today, the historical and numismatic importance of ownership remains unchanged." Seems accurate - if all the grades switched from PR to MS it wouldn't change their value.

A handful of Barber dimes have been graded SP or PL but I don't see any 1895-O with that designation.

I used to see the 1895-O fakes on the Chinese site and they all had the wrong post-1900 reverse type. I couldn't find any today but I'm sure they'll pop up again.
Valued Member
United States
202 Posts
 Posted 03/23/2024  4:53 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add apcol258 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Thank you kbbpll and jpsned for the additional information. Most interesting and informative!
  Previous TopicReplies: 7 / Views: 883Next Topic  

To participate in the forum you must log in or register.



    




Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Contact Us  |  Advertise Here  |  Privacy Policy / Terms of Use

Coin Community Forum © 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Forums
It took 0.25 seconds to rattle this change. Forums