Posted 10/09/2011 8:33 pm
I looked very closely at that coin when it was first posted and I just took a second look.
My initial judgement which I confirmed is REAL.
This coin uses the correct die style and it exhibits traits often seen on genuine Potosi strikes of 1879 and 1880. Dunigan refers to this "uneven strike" issue under the entry for 1879. The cause of the poorly struck up coins was often poorly rolled sheet silver. At least that seems to be the clear case here. This mint was operating in private hands under lease and may have been experiencing problems in the rolling and blanking phase due to worn equipment. I have been fooled by other 1880 Pi strikes and actually purchased one with the weak edged cap believing it was a forgery.
I am unaware of a counterfeit of this particular coin.
But $80 is too steep for me to gamble and buy another original. Plus in my opinion as an original that price is just too high in any event.
My initial judgement which I confirmed is REAL.
This coin uses the correct die style and it exhibits traits often seen on genuine Potosi strikes of 1879 and 1880. Dunigan refers to this "uneven strike" issue under the entry for 1879. The cause of the poorly struck up coins was often poorly rolled sheet silver. At least that seems to be the clear case here. This mint was operating in private hands under lease and may have been experiencing problems in the rolling and blanking phase due to worn equipment. I have been fooled by other 1880 Pi strikes and actually purchased one with the weak edged cap believing it was a forgery.
I am unaware of a counterfeit of this particular coin.
But $80 is too steep for me to gamble and buy another original. Plus in my opinion as an original that price is just too high in any event.
