Speaking of counterfeits...let's see your slabbed fakes

Newb · May 3, 2007 5:07AM

I had no idea this was fake until Coxe and others clued me in. Apparently PCGS didn't either.

Here's a highjacked LMC thread that gets into the details about halfway down

kwmorgan · May 3, 2007 6:04AM

A 1900 Micro "O"?

Newb · May 3, 2007 6:12AM

Nope, not a micro-O. Coxe explains it very well in the link. He does say they used the above obverse die but a different reverse die when making counterfeit micro-O's.

edit: Here's a snippet from Coxe...

Noone knows the circumstances of the micro o (and that) counterfeits except that they did circulate contemporary with their Mint produced peers in the early 20th century.

This is actually more interesting than many VAM collectors realize. Much of the focus on the micro o VAMs has been in lookin gat the reverse die for evidence that its die was created from a Mint relased coin's reverse. However, little attention was placed on the obverse dies. The scratches on the die used for the 1900-O counterfeits are used for attribution. However, the die is far more interesting than that. The date position is very near with the 1 also close to the rim. I located and sent a 1900-O with such a date, without the counterfeit's scratches, to Leroy recently enough. It was not the coin used for the micro o die creation due to the precise digit alignments. Leroy declined giving me a new designation BTW due to wear to tell id there was any die doubling, ... That was disappointing. Before someone says the die was the one used for the VAM-11 (O/CC), it is not. Leroy gave it the same obverse die in the catalogue simply becaus eit was a very near date, not the same very near date. It also is not the same as the micro o and VAM-22 (and mine). The only known possibility is that it was from the 1900-S VAM-18 and Leroy and I don't have one nor photos of one to confirm that. So this is a current mystery that should interest VAM folks.

kwmorgan · May 3, 2007 6:27AM

Wow...thx for the info. I'm gonna take the loop to my 1900-0's at home tonite. I don't remember seeing those scratches on the obverse, but now I hafta take a look to make sure. I'm not out much if one is a counterfeit, since I didn't spend much on my 1900-O's.

Newb · May 3, 2007 6:29AM

If you find one I'll take it off your hands - this one needs a mate.

Newb · May 3, 2007 1:20PM

ttt for the night crowd. I know I'm not the only one with a slabbed fake.

GoldenEyeNumismatics · May 3, 2007 1:34PM

Uggg--I do not wish to explain this again. The 1900-O Micro O is not a counterfeit!!! It is a genuine United States Mint product. Just because there is a repeating depression on the reverse of all the micro-O Morgans does not mean it is a counterfeit--although PCGS seems to think it does. The mint was simply reusing an old hub.

The New Orleans Mint was not always run very smoothly. The South was still in hard times and there were not always enough hubs at the O-Mint to go around. They simply reused an older one.

Additionally, creating a counterfeit of such insane perfection and then being so clueless as to put the WRONG SIZE "O" MINTMARK does not make sense! Since the O was the incorrect size, that means the counterfeiter would have had to hand-engraved the die (since a cast or electrotype would have a normal sized O). Hand-engraving dies that match perfectly with the standard US dies would be impossible--and even if it was done then the engraver would have at least put the right sized mint mark on the coin.

Newb · May 3, 2007 1:48PM

Never said it was a Micro O.

Did you read what Coxe said?

Aegis3 · May 3, 2007 3:42PM

<< Uggg--I do not wish to explain this again. The 1900-O Micro O is not a counterfeit!!! It is a genuine United States Mint product. Just because there is a repeating depression on the reverse of all the micro-O Morgans does not mean it is a counterfeit--although PCGS seems to think it does. The mint was simply reusing an old hub.

The New Orleans Mint was not always run very smoothly. The South was still in hard times and there were not always enough hubs at the O-Mint to go around. They simply reused an older one. >>

Dies were made in Philly.

BIGDAVE · May 3, 2007 8:43PM

Counterfeit Cameo

AlixTCat · May 3, 2007 10:14PM

I'm left wondering why anyone would counterfeit a less than $18 coin.
Just because they can?

Jonathan

stinky2005 · May 3, 2007 10:30PM

I realize the coin in the first post is counterfeit... but not a micro 'o'.

I thought the dies came from Philly too.
Also, why would they have to hand engrave a micro 'o'? Couldn't they copy the real micro 'o' dollar from 1899?

<< Uggg--I do not wish to explain this again. The 1900-O Micro O is not a counterfeit!!! It is a genuine United States Mint product. Just because there is a repeating depression on the reverse of all the micro-O Morgans does not mean it is a counterfeit--although PCGS seems to think it does. The mint was simply reusing an old hub.

The New Orleans Mint was not always run very smoothly. The South was still in hard times and there were not always enough hubs at the O-Mint to go around. They simply reused an older one.

Additionally, creating a counterfeit of such insane perfection and then being so clueless as to put the WRONG SIZE "O" MINTMARK does not make sense! Since the O was the incorrect size, that means the counterfeiter would have had to hand-engraved the die (since a cast or electrotype would have a normal sized O). Hand-engraving dies that match perfectly with the standard US dies would be impossible--and even if it was done then the engraver would have at least put the right sized mint mark on the coin. >>

Wolf359 · May 4, 2007 12:18AM

<< ttt for the night crowd. I know I'm not the only one with a slabbed fake. >>

No, you aren't. A couple of us here have all the "counterfeit" Micro O's (1896, 1900 and 1902) in PCGS slabs. As the obverse dies continue
to be unique, it certainly getting stranger to call them fakes.

Yeah, I've got one of those obverse gouge non-Micro O's as well.

Wolf359 · May 4, 2007 12:20AM

The 1900-O Micro O is not a counterfeit!!! It is a genuine United States Mint product. Just because there is a repeating depression on the reverse of all the micro-O Morgans does not mean it is a counterfeit--although PCGS seems to think it does. The mint was simply reusing an old hub.

PCGS pulled the plug a couple weeks after Leroy called them fake. No, not a coincidence, they were really forced to make a decision after
the grand master published a written report.

ccmorgan · May 4, 2007 12:38AM

Is the weight correct for these 1900-o fakes? From the looks of it I'd say genuine blanks/planchets were used?

Newb · May 4, 2007 1:55AM

BigDave, what's the story on that CAM?

Wolf359 · May 4, 2007 2:31AM

<< Is the weight correct for these 1900-o fakes? From the looks of it I'd say genuine blanks/planchets were used? >>

Yes, everything matches within tolerance, the one coin tested for alloy content showed a higher than expected amount of silver. However,
the "look" on higher grade XF/AU Micro O's isn't correct - they don't look like normal Morgan business strikes.

I'd add as far as the Mint reusing reverse dies - this was common practice on proof coins (example 1878-1880), so if the Micro O's were
genuine Mint experiments of some kind then re-use of the reverse die is not conclusive proof they were counterfeits. But the obverse
dies on proof coins are unique in many cases, which...for right now....is also true on the Micro O's.

tahoe98 · May 4, 2007 4:24AM

<< I'm left wondering why anyone would counterfeit a less than $18 coin.
Just because they can?

Jonathan >>

Aegis3 · May 4, 2007 4:30AM

<< 

<< I'm left wondering why anyone would counterfeit a less than $18 coin.
Just because they can?

Jonathan >>

>>

Or, ask yourself why would someone counterfeit plenty of $1 coins in the 1930s and 40s and make about $0.50 profit on each. Makes a lot more sense that way.

CoinKing · May 4, 2007 5:25AM

Prior to announcing the new VAM attribution program, PCGS became concerned that the micro Os of 1896, 1900 and 1902 were contemporary counterfeits. No one to this point had enough high grade examples to compare in order to perform an adequate analysis. Independent of Leroy Van Allen, PCGS grader Mike Faraone asked silver dollar collectors Jeff Oxman and Lloyd Gabbert to send in as many of their micro Os as possible so that a comparison could be made. There were over 30 coins used in determining that the micro Os of 1899 were genuine and the micro Os of 1896, 1900 and 1902 were counterfeit. These results were published in Coin World prior to Leroy VanAllen's release on the subject. The reverse dies used on the counterfeits had many repeating depressions in the field. A depression is significant in that it would be a raised lump on the striking die in an area that is polished flat when new. Defects in the die such as die erosion, gouges and rust would leave raised areas on struck coins, not depressions.
The coins were contemporary counterfeits used to circulate during the early 1900s. In general, they were within tolerance by weight and silver content. It would cost the counterfeiter approximately 50 cents to produce his counterfeit as silver hovered around 60 cents per ounce during this period. We have seen the 1900-O round O silver dollars with the obverse die gouges that match the counterfeit 1900-O micro Os. These are genuine. The 1900-O shown in this thread is genuine. The counterfeiter used a coin struck from this die to manufacture his counterfeit die.

Newb · May 4, 2007 5:30AM

I'll let the experts hammer that one out.

How about this? Is this genuine?

Zoins · May 4, 2007 5:37AM

<< How about this? Is this genuine? >>

That's a genuine ASE?

Newb · May 4, 2007 5:40AM

<< 

<< How about this? Is this genuine? >>

That's a genuine ASE?

>>

true dat.

ccmorgan · May 4, 2007 6:04AM

<< I'll let the experts hammer that one out.

How about this? Is this genuine? >>

The coin is but the AT isn't.

Newb · May 4, 2007 6:06AM

<< 

<< I'll let the experts hammer that one out.

How about this? Is this genuine? >>

The coin is but the AT isn't. >>

That's what I meant, and I agree.

Zoins · May 4, 2007 6:12AM

<< 

<< The coin is but the AT isn't. >>

That's what I meant, and I agree. >>

That's a completely different issue than the OP which was interesting by itself. No need for thread hijacking since that ASE already has two popular threads all to itself.

Newb · May 4, 2007 6:21AM

<< 

<< 

<< The coin is but the AT isn't. >>

That's what I meant, and I agree. >>

That's a completely different issue than the OP which was interesting by itself. No need for thread hijacking since that ASE already has two popular threads all to itself. >>

Did it ever get addressed by the man himself? If so I missed it, and figured since he was here, it would be a good time.

Oh, and it's my thread. I can highjack at will.

Zoins · May 4, 2007 6:23AM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< The coin is but the AT isn't. >>

That's what I meant, and I agree. >>

That's a completely different issue than the OP which was interesting by itself. No need for thread hijacking since that ASE already has two popular threads all to itself. >>

Did it ever get addressed by the man himself? If so I missed it, and figured since he was here, it would be a good time. >>

Good luck then! You might have more luck if you can prove it's AT, but so far there has mostly been a lot of speculation and seemingly no research. Maybe PCGS can get to the bottom of it.

<< Oh, and it's my thread. I can highjack at will. >>

Hijack away then!

walkerminus1 · May 4, 2007 6:39AM

<< BigDave, what's the story on that CAM? >>

Yes BigDave, please share the story. Then maybe this thread can get back on subject of what the OP wanted it to be. I want to see more slabbed counterfeits and the stories behind them.

Rob

I believe hijacking a thread should be considered "market acceptable" when hijacked by the OP.

BIGDAVE · May 4, 2007 8:30AM

Russ found the fake cameo's a few years back and posted the serial numbers and mine matched From the Same batch ,the cameo is bleeding into the fields.
(the Blue Is Running)

<< I went thru my Registry set looking for the #. Russ Posted And Bam there it Is #21037558 a 1959 pr67 cameo >>

David Hall said to send them in to Him.
I got into Vams and Forgot all about them .

Writersblock · May 4, 2007 10:50AM

Newb · May 5, 2007 12:31AM

Wow WB, what's the story on that?

Newb · May 5, 2007 12:32AM

<< Russ found the fake cameo's a few years back and posted the serial numbers and mine matched From the Same batch ,the cameo is bleeding into the fields.
(the Blue Is Running)

<< I went thru my Registry set looking for the #. Russ Posted And Bam there it Is #21037558 a 1959 pr67 cameo >>

David Hall said to send them in to Him.
I got into Vams and Forgot all about them .

>>

How do they make a fake cameo? Tiny sandblaster?

Zoins · May 5, 2007 12:38AM

<< Wow WB, what's the story on that? >>

That possible altered date coin was reported recently in an EAC news letter, then ATS before being discussed here. There was some research done on this coin and PCGS has said they would handle it, probably by buying it back.

Writersblock, do you own this coin now? If so, are you thinking of returning it to the seller or sending it to PCGS?

Zoins · May 5, 2007 12:42AM

<< How do they make a fake cameo? >>

Take a look at this thread. It seems like there are a number of these in PCGS slabs, with many of them submitted by one person. These can be identified by the way the frost breaks down and deteriorates into the field which doesn't exist on true D/CAMs.

Newb · May 5, 2007 12:48AM

They then painted the devices with a translucent paint to enhance the apparent frost.

PAINT! And a grader can't see that?

Wow.

Thanks for that link. That's wild.

Writersblock · May 5, 2007 1:02AM

No I don't own it but I wish I did. I had been exchanging emails with the person who did pay over $3,000 for it but he has dropped out of site and I haven't heard anymore from him for awhile so I can't say what the final outcome has been. I couldn't afford to own that piece though because it would cost as much as the genuine coin to acquire it. No one would sell it for less than that because of the PCGS promise to buy it back. If PCGS will pay them FMV for it, there is no way I could get it for what the altered date piece itself would be worth.

The easiest way to spot that this isn't real is to look at the berry to the right of the E in ONE. All of the 1804 cents were struck from one pair of dies and on it the berry is just above the middle of the E. On this one it's all the way up at the top. There are other features as well.

Speaking of counterfeits...let's see your slabbed fakes

Comments

Leave a Comment