Recently Rediscovered Deceptive Struck Counterfeit 1797 “S-139” large Cents
burfle23
Posts: 2,593 ✭✭✭✭✭
One of the suspected struck counterfeit varieties we are aware of is the 1797 “S-139” large cent from a 2015 TPG submission package.
In our process of trying to identify these through images we go to the internet and search several sites for internet and auction example images to find any with the characteristic matching marks. In the case of this “variety” we had the lone submitted example only, and roughly a year passed until we found a matching one; the internet listing for this 2nd example was removed prior to a sale being made, and we lost track of it.
But like a “bad penny”, these seem to raise their heads eventually and this missing one made its way through an internet buy/sell site showing it broken from a TPG slab; unfortunately a friend “won” it and sent images after the fact. I was of course disheartened when I quickly matched it to that example.
That led to more discussion and investigation and through it we confirmed the match; it also matched many of the markers of the 1st example, but there are enough differences to be confident they are not the same “coin”, making at least one of the two a struck counterfeit…
Continuing research leads to new/additional opportunities to gain more insight especially when higher resolution images become available. That is exactly what happened with this “variety”, and in comparison images additional attribution marks (we call them “sister marks”) just seem to pop out!
The images for this post include the obverse and reverse comparisons between the two examples; white circles and arrows point out common marks while the red arrow points to some damage apparently unique to this latest example (there are differences on the dentils in several areas as well).
Best, Jack.
Comments
So, is the one on the right real or are both struck counterfeits?
The one on the left was called a struck counterfeit by the TPG, the one on the right a struck counterfeit by all measures as well.
It would be helpful if you could identify which pieces are good and which ones are bad from the out set.
I once owned an example of this variiety that was in the condition census.
OK; both have been deemed by separate in-hand reviews to be counterfeits; without seeing either in-hand myself or images of the known genuine source coin it is clear that AT LEAST ONE is fake.
Best, Jack.
The one on the left is bad for sure, going by the photo.
Whoever is doing this with copper could be doing it with gold and silver.
Gold would be easy to pull off on issues like the indians.
The lettering in "LIBERTY" is different. Is is possible that the coin pictured on the right is genuine and the one on the left is counterfeit? Or is it possible that both are counterfeit and one is an early die trial that was rejected (the one on the left) because the lettering did not look authentic?
More trouble in River City. The Music Man just left town.
Then you have a better eye than me Bill! I think images can be deceiving, especially color; in this original submission package the TPG's images made every example the same color and low contrast. I actually tried to lighten it here to better show the detail and marks.
I am interested in your thoughts of this one?
Jack
The dentil appearance on the example on the right is amazing, and the color is pretty good too....if that is really a struck counterfeit and not the original host coin, wow - very impressive!
Thanks for the response Walkerguy21D; the single image above is of the coin on the right in its 1st appearance for sale in 2016.
I thought you were playing one of your tricks on us
so I did not wish to ruin the fun for Bill.
I matched up the deep hit on the top right bow that continued on to the leaf.
My issues with the one on the right being the source example (which with the images appears possible) are:
1) the damaged area at the reverse bow to leaf appears unique to this example and if "original" should be in others we are reviewing
2) the weight is 9.4 grams versus the standard of 10.89
3) and unexplained edge striking anomalies I won't go into here
But, for sure one of the two (and we are reviewing 4 other sets of images) is counterfeit! The research on this one continues...
**2) the weight is 9.4 grams versus the standard of 10.89
3) and unexplained edge striking anomalies I won't go into here
**
Ok, since I didn't know about these two issues, I'll concur fake too.
This is an interesting mystery.... I have been following the several threads on this for a while and I am still not sure if anyone has determined if any are original or all are fakes.... I know there must be some originals, but the discussion has wandered and now I am not sure which is which. I realize we now know that there are several fakes, but would like to see a side by side determining map of the features that ascertain originality vs. counterfeit. Cheers, RickO
I don’t think it is genuine. I am suspicious of the edge, which I can’t see, but suspect is squared off, given that there appears to be a sort of “fin” or wire rim over “STATES” on the reverse. These coins were not struck in a collar and should not have any "fins."
The color also looks like “Chinese corrosion” to me. It’s get the fake greenish - gray tinge to it that you don’t see on real old corroded coins which is more of a pure green.
One of the ways they catch you is the rough up the surfaces to remove the problems with their copy dies.
Just to be clear, the "greenish" colored one and the more natural appearing one (on the right of my originally posted images and here) are the same "coin". It has been "improved" by the latest owner and appears more "natural" in its latest images.
Also, I didn't mean to "wander" in this post, just show that there are fakes of this "variety" out there and the efforts we go through to ascertain "Live from Memorex", but it is not always that clear cut. In hand review including physical properties (beyond the scope of this post) aid in the determination as well as finding the actual genuine source example and good images of it to sort them out as well.
In this case the investigation is continuing, as we have not found the clear genuine source to date and have additional suspect example images to sort through- part of the detailed process and research that goes into each.
From my start of this post, having found this 2nd example confirms our original suspicions that this variety/example has been counterfeited. Now the fun of tying it all together begins...
Was able to secure the second example from a previous seller and should have for more detailed "in-hand" review by week's end; this example was previously removed from an NGC slab.
Welcome back! IMO, finding the source coin is interesting but matching repeating defects is more important. Sometimes the fakers make up a new die to begin with.
I don't disagree, but the jury is out on whether this is the source or another struck clone; the defect in the reverse you pointed out has not been seen in the other suspicious examples imaged for this variety.
I am writing a research article on fake struck 1803 half cents where several were struck and then the die was strengthened in detail (in an area always weak in the genuine examples) to differentiate the later struck examples from the first, but the major repeating marks are still there.
Well, bring in the jury...
Found a likely suspect hiding in a past 2013 Goldberg auction. Marks in white are apparent common ones, red appear to be different between the two examples:
I love these posts---they are the results of a lot of time spent and very interesting. They're also quite disconcerting.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
Hmmm. Looking at the latest group of photos, there are other similarities on the obverse. Below the ribbon and directly left of the curl of hair that sticks out -- there are three shallow marks that appear identical on both coins. Similarly on the reverse, there are matching hits in the denticles just above the left and right edges of T in STATES.
Thanks Sonorandesertrat; I now have the example on the right in hand for review- aided my look for another one, as the marks get easier to see the more you find (unfortunately). My suspicion at this point is the Goldberg example is the genuine source coin.
You got it.
If the Goldberg coin is the genuine original coin -- and I'm certainly open to the possibility -- please explain the odd denticles on the reverse that Bill first noted. The only thing that comes to mind is PMD, and that seems to be a remote possibility given the even look of the feature -- I wouldn't expect PMD (some type of rolling that caused the edge to bend in?) to be more variable in effect.
I have to admit I am lost in my own post...
What note from Bill about the denticles on the reverse and which image are you referring to? If you are looking at the "greenish" colored one, it is the same as the "brown" example on the right of the last images and I agree it is a struck clone. What effect does that have on the open possibility the coin on the left is the genuine source example?
Thanks, Jack.
There is a rolled up edge about 10 o'clock. it's nothing and it is on the counterfeit also.
Part of the fun in the research is trying to fit all the puzzle pieces together; more examples "discovered", more opportunity to find significant matching, and sometimes more importantly non-matching marks.
In the case of the proposed source versus the suspected clone, the "source" has a long scratch in the right obverse field which is not apparent on the "Clone".
Knowing from other fake varieties that the counterfeiters used damaged and then repaired genuine source coins I went back to some old files and found this slabbed example. It was sold on an internet venue by a notorious seller of fakes (and some genuine source coins) at the same time the 1st suspect example was seen in the TPG submission package and looks like what I would suspect a repaired source may look like after repairs and the fake dies made. (unfortunately these are the only images I have of that one).
More in the works! Jack.
Looking for help if anyone saved better images of the PCGS slabbed example 32870411?
Thanks,
Jack
I was referring to this comment from @BillJones :
I am suspicious of the edge, which I can’t see, but suspect is squared off, given that there appears to be a sort of “fin” or wire rim over “STATES” on the reverse. These coins were not struck in a collar and should not have any "fins."
The area in question is from 10 o'clock to 12 o'clock.
For what it's worth, I'm not even close to an expert in these early large cents -- so I can't really comment if this is something that is typical on these coins -- but that feature doesn't make sense to me any more than it did Bill.
Edge view:
Updated images of this one courtesy NGC:
Wow... very informative thread! And a bit frightening. ...
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
Thanks for keeping us informed Jack. Everything you do is appreciated!
Thank you!
A friend from another forum is using scanning and CAD to compare images of the suspected source coin to the suspect counterfeit example:
"Grade" from NGC:
keep up the much appreciated work
Noted EAC expert Bob Grellman agreed this one is a counterfeit this morning after reviewing it in hand and reviewing the images.
are both struck counterfeits?
Both of the 1st 2 in this post are believed to be struck counterfeits, with the Goldberg example the genuine host coin.
Back from ICG: