Well, there have been a lot of good comments on this coin. I wanted to take the time to get to the bank and retrieve my copy before I made an actual comment on what this is. I wanted to see how closely my coin matched this one. My copy was a "pattern" casting made by the Beijing group of counterfeiters early on before they started high volume production of this forgery. Mine was the third that I nad encountered and the first I could actually buy at "counterfeit" price level. The other copies were owned by individuals who were positive they were real. It was one of the forgers first attempts at creating a precisely cast duplicate of an early US dollar in silver.
My copy has the reversed edge lettering - quite an error (alos indicating an early trial), but they can't read English well so you can't fault them for getting it backwards. So my coin is NOT identical, but it is definitely a close relative of this coin.
There are a few facts that can be derived with nearly 100% certainty from the scans posted. First a comment, I will use the word die and mold here as being one and the same thing. That is because, some forgers are known to use the same plastic die/mold for both striking and casting purposes. As a die, a dental plastic transfer impression has a limited life even when they use 0.999 fine silver heated to a near plastic state. But even after the impression splits - it can still be used as a mold - and it comes with the added benefit of a "New die crack". How much more original do you want?
The coin in the pictures and the ANACS encapsulated coin are either (1)one in the same coin, (2)they were made from the same transfer die or (3)they are a Host and duplicate pair. Anything else is simply IMPOSSIBLE.
Please check the location of the nicks and bag marks on both sets of pictures - they are in fact identical. The pictures of the raw coin show far better detail so you will see only the bigger features through the slab. Some of the most notable ones are in and around the date. But also check the bigger bag marks in the fields and you should be able to spot the match. This is actually the technique I use to prove that many other issues are fakes and to trace them as originating from the same source. I keep a log of coins and scans posted by the Chinese and compare nicks. A match between two sellers is proof positive of a linkage to the same source.
Because the wear on each coin is unique (like a finger print) the larger marks are often used to diagnose forgeries quickly. There are cases, however when strategically placed chop marks have been used to eliminate the telltale traces. A cruder technique is to simply add a small dent that obliterates a large feature.
That accounts for the duplicate nicks and dents - but what about the raised "pimples" that are so obvious on the raw coin? I don't recall too many comments about the raised marks, but you need to think of raised marks on the coin as being recesses in the die and conversely that dimples in the coin are raised spots on the die. Holes in the die are a feature of worn dies (old dies) this one still rtains a new look so the raised lumps and lines are out of place.
Other than cases where you are dealing with ONE coin, you get a match of dents and lumps only when you have casts made from the same mold - OR
when you are seeing pictures of the original host coin and one of the cast duplicates. That last option is what I am guessing could be the case here. I think that the coin in the ANACS holder is (or was) real. ANACS claims that it is impossible to switch out a coin from one of their slabs. I have had discussions along that line with graders but I get the company line that it is impossible. Well...........
New duplicating techniques used in China are definitely capable of making a copy without many of the old clues seen on castings. In my opinion, the coin NOT encapsulated is a cast copy (injection molded) using a plastic transfer mold. I can not believe that ANACS slabbed the cast version because about 4 months ago minimum I discussed the existance of this 1795 Dollar fake with a grader at ANACS and he confirmed that they had already seen it.
The newer casting technique does no damage to the original coin - except perhaps to slightly alter the color and slightly impare the mint luster (so cleaned on the holder is normal). After they have been used (as a master hub) - the counterfeiters simply have the originals slabbed and resell them to recover part of their initial investment. Has anyone ever noticed how many encapsulated coins are sold by the Chinese forgers right AFTER they introduce a new forgery type to the market? Have you also noted that the fakes invariably start at some LOW number like 99 cents or $ 9.99 but that the real encapsulated host coins start right near the correct price!
Regarding the comments indicating that the coin's surface is too pock marked - RIGHT ON. That is one of the worst features I see on this one. The surface pores are very similar to my copy.
First Page
Posted 07/06/2006 2:47 pm
