1936 Buffalo Counterfeit Or Die Trial

Weak strike. The outside edge of the die didn't leave marks next to rim.

This submission and responses to it were in 2009. I, for one, would be interested to know whether a definitive answer was found to the nature of this coin. It's my humble opinion that the coin is genuine. If only one side were affected, I might have suggested a struck-through coin, but not likely with both sides week.
I'm doubtful of opinions that it's fake. Logic begs the question, "who would go to the trouble for a common coin?" The easiest way to fake a coin would be to impress a die into a softer metal, which would involve a double-reverse procedure to keep from ending up with everything backwards. The design elements all appear too accurate for most simple methods of counterfeiting. Lettering is often the hardest element to fake, and the lettering style matches legitimate coins.
The sharp observation about the missing incuse designer's F initial presents another puzzlement I have no explanation for; it would not be affected by die polishing. The coin otherwise really looks to me like a very heavily polished end-state pair of dies as the best explanation, but that would indicate that there should be other similar exmples.
I think we're all stumped, but maybe someone hit the nail on the head, and if so, I'd like to know! Maybe the intervening year and a half has resulted in a definitive answer. Yes? No?

That didn't stop Francis Henning from minting several hundred thousand counterfeit Jefferson nickels in the 1950s nor did it stop a criminal enterprise in South America from minting almost 1 million counterfeit Sacagwea dollars in the early 2000s. Sacky dollars are the preferred currency in Ecuador, most Ecuadorians think that Sacagawea is actually a representation of an Incan, hence their love for the golden dollars.


I have a very strong opinion that it is indeed a counterfeit strike, there are just too many questionable things wrong with it. However, nothing definitive can be said since the OP has not posted here in the last 2 1/2 years.

I have a die trial, in true uncirculated condition with full mint lustre.

It shows detail fully struck up in the lower parts of the design, but with the high points, there is no detail at all.

The die trial I have is a 1917 Australian Florin which I bought off Eddie Cummings, who was editor of the 22nd edition of the
Rennicks Australian Coin & Banknote Values
at the time I bought the coin off him.

At the time I bought it off him, he remarked that the coin was a die trial, not just a weak strike. In this case, the mint was adjusting the pressure of the strike, and this coin should have been remelted. The striking pressure was obviously not great enough.

I have one like his. The outside feels like lead. It's a 1936 Buffalo with all the correct details except, it has an Indian head on each side, no buffalo.
I bought it with 4 other lead US coins from a collector that aquired them in the 50s I believe as most of his Whitman coin books are dated 1940 to 1949 and cost him .35 cents. The other four coins all have the correct obverse and reverse images. They are a 1890 CC dollar...a 1935 Walking Liberty half dollar...a 1949 Washington quarter
...a 1930 Buffalo nickel...a 1904 V nickel. I just don't understand dual Indian heads on the Buffalo nickel. Any opinions?

I believe what you say is correct, I have a double headed trick coin. What a bummer lol.

I'm 90% sure its counterfeit. The design is very weak on details, yet certain aspects seemingly have detail. The Indian has no neck, and the rim is split on the obverse at approx 4 o'clock. On the reverse, "United" is extremely weak and "Unum" is invisible. The inconsistencies would cause me to pass on this coin as a forgery.