Non Silver Pillar Dollar Copies

I doubt that any of the 3 would be "contemporary counterfeits" meant to pass as real back in the mid to late 1700's. They certainly aren't numismatic fakes meant to fool collectors, at least not anyone who has any knowledge of pillar coins so my guess is they are tourist fakes meant to fool a non collector who thinks he/she found a great deal in some second hand store on some vacation somewhere. By the way, the first one looks pretty cool in an odd poorly done engraving sort of way. The middle one has a serious seam along the edge, hard to believe someone would miss that. I like your posts, keep on showing us the fake pillars so we can all learn.

odentheviking Nice photos of good examples to illustrate certain points that are needed to identify forgeries.

The fact that the designs are incorrect, as jfransch points out correctly, would place the first two in the Tourist Class or Replica Class of Modern Forgeries. People using a more abbreviated version of Classification would call them Crude Numismatic Forgeries. Personally while I see them as a subgroup of the large "Numismatic" class I like to differentiate them as a group(s).

Remember that to many specialists there are ONLY two classifications - Contemporary (which means circulating) and Numismatic (which means NON-circulating). I think this is too broad which I why I have been working out a more detailed system for years.

But personally speaking these two (1739 and 1743) are so crude that referring to them as Numismatic in any sense is a bit insulting. ;)] They will not fool a serious numismatist but they might deceive a gullible beginner at times.

Numismatic is often coupled with another term like Counterfeit, Fraud, Fake or Forgery to make it clear that the coin discussed is not real. I tend to reserve "Counterfeit" for the circulating types and prefer Forgery for anything Modern. The ease with which we can get confused by terms is why a precise but simple set of terms would be great - but no system exists to my knowledge.

The value of looking at coins like the three above is to learn from these types what to expect and not to expect on a real coin.

The 1739 is, as you note, a good artistic engraving - the knowledge of the globe indicates a fairly recent origin. The edge treatment is a series of edge gouges applied to make the two faces look more primitive BUT the edge itself is left PLAIN. That is a clear indication that no fraud was intended by the manufacturer. There is no attempt at deception so a REPLICA classification is likely for this one. It looks like something that would be found in souvenir shops for purchase by TOURISTS.

If it were a "Tribute" type coin I would expect a more faithful representation of the design with frosted details on a polished field and I would expect the coin to be struck as a Proof in silver with an edge inscription. Tribute coins are often Unifaced with something other than the original design on the opposite side. They often are displayed on only part of the disc.

The 1739 was NOT meant to circulate as a coin so it would classify as "Numismatic Forgery - Replica Class" in my opinion. Although it may be presented as real on the Secondary market (like ebay) it was more than likely originally just intended as a simple souvenir. No added attempts to conceal whiat it is were made either.

The distinction between Replica Class and Tourist Class is really one of intent of manufacture (or secondary seller if the coin has been modified). If a coin is marked COPY at the factory or was known to have been sold in a labelled package marked REPLICA (common in the 1960s before the Hobby Protection Act) then it is unfair to attach a pejorative label to it. BUT if the coin is known to appear offered as a "discovery", part of a "Hoard" or part of an old collection and is clearly made with the intent to swindle unsuspecting Tourists or Novice collectors, then I move it to the Tourist Class. I also move ALTERED replica coins into the Tourist Class because there is an attempt made by someone to conceal the real identity. Sale of such a coin is FRAUD. The Chinese forgeries being sold on ebay fall into this Class. They are not individually packaged for sale as souvenirs, they are not appropriately marked for sale in the US and in 99% of the cases some attempt has been made to conceal their true method of manufacture.

The 1743 Pillar is in the same class as the 1739. ORIGINALLY it was made and packaged as a souvenir. I have seen it in it's original packaging and I have seen them marked COPY as well. It is a very common modern copy made in several finishes. After the coin is made the manufacturer applies different thin coatings to produce a bright silver surface, a dulled silver surface called "Antique" with dark highlights or a Bronze surface with or without the antique surface treatment. I saw all of the varieties for sale at $2.95 each while on a trip to Florida some time ago. They were offered as Pirate Money alongside the standard Cob copies. The dealer who "cleaned" the coin likely used an acid dip which stripped the coating. This is a "core" as cast. There is NO ATTEMPT to conceal the edge seam. It is not a fraud - hence it is a REPLICA class Numismatic forgery.

The attempt to remove the edge seam by filing or sanding is in my opinion prima fascia evidence of FRAUDULENT INTENT. I put all coins with such alterations in the Tourist Class even if they were originally sold legitimately as Replicas. So yes a coin can change class due to the actions of a secondary owner.

One thing I always do when on vacation (my wife likes to take cruises) is to accompany her to the tourist shops. (She also loves Florida). Most of the Islands have variations of the 8R for sale. In this way over they years I have identified many of the coins offered on ebay as "discoveries" as Replicas removed from their original packaging. I have also discovered that regardless of what the salesman say that 99% of what is sold in these shops is FRAUDULENT even if they have price tags reading $1600. I only ran into one shop that sold real salvaged coins and they were terrifically overpriced. The bulk of what is offered are castings made from molds created from original coins. In the more up-front (honest) stores they will admit that these are cast replicas using "SOME original salvaged silver". I would love to know the actual ratio of salvage silver to raw that is in the mix. You can bet not too much. But it is enough to be legal and enough so that they are not lying when they say "Real sea salvaged silver".

The 1756 falls into a slightly different category than the other two. It is NOT a Replica. It was made using an electroplated silver layer deposited over a struck copper core methodology that was introduced in the late 1800's. So it is therefore not contemporary either. The edge is a LOTUS design (rather crude) that was rolled onto the edge. In your case it was rolled on off center so that the whole design is not there. I have seen one with the design well centered and it looks better but not convincing if you have ever seen a real one. However, if you are a beginner, it could fool you. The weight of the coin is also good for a novice. It feels HEAVY not like the flimsy 1743 above. It has some HEFT it has a Lotus edge design so a novice might think it is real.

But it is Modern as evidenced by the VERY THIN plating layer. Plating from the 1770s was VERY HEAVY. When it was first developed (ca 1770) the Sheffield process used very thick silver layers. It took some time to develop the process to get thinner layers. They NEVER achieved the thin plate seen on your coin. Also the early Sheffield's needed a strip of silver applied to the edges. Remember that when the sandwich of three layers of metal was cut to make the blanks the EDGES LACKED SILVER. The edge silver coat was rolled ONTO the blank usually AFTER the coin was struck to hide the change of color on the edge. There are corner seams on all true Sheffield plates and those are often the first points to fail exposing the fraud.

So the 1756 is Modern - It is therefore a Numismatic Forgery. I would not assign a subcategory because I believe it was an intentional fraud meant to sell as an original to less than well informed collectors.

I find it very hard to believe that any "professional dealer" would actually be fooled by the 1739 in the picture. But what really shocked me was that he attributed the loss of weight (about 25%) to corrosion caused by sea water.

The coin weighs under 21 grams. It is hard not to notice such a significant weight loss. It should be a very poor looking coin with virtually NO DETAILS remaining.

He must be a novice who is totally unfamiliar with the Pillar Dollar type and furthermore he must actually be unfamiliar with silver coins in general.

I say this because many novice collectors have no clue about how much weight a silver coin actually loses in circulation. In reality, a coin which relies on silver (or any metal) content for value can not wear appreciably before some portion of that value is lost. Underweight coins actually defraud the people that accept them in commerce so preventative measures were taken to avoid underweight coins. Edge security devices and dentils added at the coin's edges prevented clipping and shaving from going unnoticed. But security went beyond the edge. The coins were struck in low relief so that WEAR was noticed.

The silver dollars we are discussing came from a different era - the era of HARD MONEY. At that time, a coin that was underweight by as little as 5% was considered UNACCEPTABLE for business. Worn coins were retired and returned to the mint.

So when dealing with silver coins, one fact you must always keep in mind is that a silver coin worn to 95% of its original weight is likely to grade AG at best.