Posted 03/24/2024 7:26 pm
It appears that they are correct about this piece, with the biggest tell being their secondary point about the misshapen column lettering... also the rim/denticle area.
However, their opening, primary point about "see how weakly struck it is and all the detail is missing?" is off-base. Anyone semi-familiar with these knows this Standing 1850s Costa Rica coinage is notoriously weakly-struck in the center - a quick review of authentic examples quickly proves this.
They cherrypicked a MUCH higher grade piece (less circulation wear - UNC or very close) that ALSO happens to have received a much better than typical strike. It in fact is rather unusual to find a VF-XF piece with more than just a trace of skirt detail.
Here, as a fairer comparison, is a piece that NGC straight-graded XF45 (which was generous as it pretty much looks textbook ex-jewelry surface, seems to have an ignored mount mark... plus not sure if that's notable scratch or a die crack). A much closer match in circulation wear to what was the model for the fake piece... and just look how blunt the center is.
However, their opening, primary point about "see how weakly struck it is and all the detail is missing?" is off-base. Anyone semi-familiar with these knows this Standing 1850s Costa Rica coinage is notoriously weakly-struck in the center - a quick review of authentic examples quickly proves this.
They cherrypicked a MUCH higher grade piece (less circulation wear - UNC or very close) that ALSO happens to have received a much better than typical strike. It in fact is rather unusual to find a VF-XF piece with more than just a trace of skirt detail.
Here, as a fairer comparison, is a piece that NGC straight-graded XF45 (which was generous as it pretty much looks textbook ex-jewelry surface, seems to have an ignored mount mark... plus not sure if that's notable scratch or a die crack). A much closer match in circulation wear to what was the model for the fake piece... and just look how blunt the center is.
