Omega $3 Gold
skier07
Posts: 3,941 ✭✭✭✭✭
Here’s a neat looking Omega $3 Gold coin. My father bought this “coin” from a local jewelry/coin store in New Jersey in the 1970’s. I don’t think the owner of the shop knew it was fake. Two dealers at a Long Beach show several years ago both told me it was an Omega that was probably gold. The white stuff on the coin is a reflection from the holder. Will PCGS slab this as an Omega?
5
Comments
I'm not familiar with Omega $3's. Is it marked with the symbol?
bob
Look at the R on Liberty, the lower right corner, and you’ll see the signature.
The Greek letter omega is inside the loop of the R in LIBERTY.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
Badass! Ω
It’s an amazing coin. With reading glasses and a 6x loupe I still don’t really see the Omega on the R. I know I’m visually challenged but thank goodness for pictures and TPG’s.
Back to the original question, will it get
graded?
I would love to own an omega one day.
This is not one. It is a crude counterfeit that was around before the "Omega" type. There is probably a "T or J" shaped incuse mark below the bow on the reverse. The image is too fuzzy to tell.
There is only one TPGS that will slab fakes at the moment.
@Insider2 you are the man. There’s a T on the reverse below the bow on the left side. I needed reading glasses and a 10x loupe to see it.
...on purpose at least
That fake was around in the 1969-70 time period. The gold alloy is low. The "Omega's" came later and were much more deceptive.
I think it is far from a "crude" counterfeit. It looks like a circa 1960s Middle Eastern piece, which were generally pretty good in quality.
As mentioned, only one company does, IGC.
ICG?
Looks like a very stylized 2 to me, there appears to be something there. Is it that the counterfeiters marked the coin with a subtle secret mark? Peace Roy
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun, MichaelDixon, NickPatton, ProfLiz, Twobitcollector,Jesbroken
Roy,
I agree, the Ω in the photo posted by @WoodenJefferson looks like a stylized 2. The NGC page says it was altered on the coin in their photo, and that is is clearer on other Omega examples.
https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/3033/Counterfeit-1882-three-dollar/
I really cannot see it in the OP...Nor the T on the reverse....That being said, although the Omega's are known counterfeits, there seems to be a market for those that can be authenticated... Looking at this coin (OP)... I lean more to dcarr's conclusion... Cheers, RickO
Exactly. The people who did the Omega $20 were skilled counterfeiters, and they, AND OTHER COUNTERFEITERS, did many high quality counterfeits.
As to the 2 in the date, genuine 1882 $3's come with a boldly repunched date, most obviously seen at the top of the 2. Various counterfeits of the 1882 $3 show more or less of this repunching, depending on how well they reproduced the detail and/or whether the idiots tried to remove or disguise the repunching because they thought it was a defect in their fake die.
This is not an Omega. There is no Omega on the obverse, but on the the bottom right of the R there is some type of mark, and only under high magnification Is the T on the reverse below the ribbon visible.
I still think it’s a neat coin and I plan on submitting it.
@skier07.... Let us know what the results are.... Will you submit to our hosts? Cheers, RickO
A brief Counterfeit Detection 101 lecture: Note how EVERYTHING on both sides has the exact same luster and color, including the weak area below LIBE and the high parts of the wreath. This luster was imparted by the dies that struck the coin. The dies were copied from a coin that was weak in these areas.
On a genuine coin with a weak strike in the high areas, think of the ear on an 1883-O Morgan Dollar, the unstruck areas still show the original frosty texture of the planchet. This is usually brighter than the struck areas. Planchet luster is different than die-struck luster.
On a genuine coin with wear in the high areas, the worn areas have the luster imparted by the dies rubbed off in these high areas. Worn areas are typically duller and/or darker than the original luster in unworn areas.
TD
I didn't know that there were two Omegas out there. That makes it a fake of a fake. Is the original Omega worth more? Both should be turned into wedding bands so far as I'm concerned.
You are correct. What is crude to a professional authenticator is a deceptive fake to the majority of folks. I keep forgetting this. This particular counterfeit $3 was the first fake gold coin I ever saw. At the time, it was well known to the Mint Authenticators. I was hired as a clerk at ANACS. My job was to photograph and weigh coins that were submitted. I'm very thankful that one day Charles Hoskins sat me down in front of a stereoscope and showed me the incuse mark under the bow, the "roundish" berries, and put a genuine $3 next to this one so I could see the different color of the fake. Soon, he had me authenticating and grading (for internal ID) each coin before his exam and we cleared the several month backlog of coins in a few weeks. Profits and submissions "exploded" as turnaround time dropped. Oops, off the subject. Once I saw enough genuine coins using the scope and fluorescent light, I could detect a fake gold coin made in the late 60's to the present time (1972) from a foot away buy its color alone.
One story I tell students happened the first time I met one of the founders of ANACS, a well-respected authenticator at the time. He came to ANACS to meet me and teach me something I guess. Fortunately, I already had a better teacher in Hoskins. Unfortunately, at my age, I was "full of myself" and what I had learned. When the man I so admired pulled out a coin wallet to show me what he considered a very dangerous, "State-of-the-Art counterfeit $5 Indian (remember the coin would have fooled 95%+ of the coin dealers at the time - causing the ANACS to be established) I brashly told him the coin was counterfeit while it was in the 2X2 inches from the pocket he had removed it from almost a foot away! I did the exact same thing with the next coin, a $2 1/ he tried to show me. Both were very crude, fatty, off-color pieces coming out of Lebanon that in my opinion would not fool anyone! Then I offered to teach him some things about counterfeit detection I had learned from Hoskins."
I hindsight, what I did with no malice intended was a very stupid and imature thing out of my sheer ignorance and a lack of relationship skills. I should have kept my mouth shut and let him "educate" me. As it was, he got up without a word, when into the other room with the ANACS Director, and left after a short time. When he was gone, I learned that he told Hoskins that ANACS was not to authenticate any more $2 1/2 or $5 gold coins because they were too hard to authenticate. LOL. His wishes were totally ignored by us for this reason: If what "Old-Cracked-Eye" (the new name I gave him out of my newfound disrespect) asked us to do and no longer accept those two types of coins, how would we know what the genuine coins looked like in order to detect a fake.?
Taking someone who knows nothing about coins who would be deceived by a green colored, lead replica of a $20 coin, it is not how long a person is in the business to decide what is crude or not. It is also dependent on the time frame. What was considered a deceptive fake at one time may now be considered "crude" when compared to fakes that came later (just a few years in the case of the OP's example).
Nope, If I recall, the "2" is repunched.
Don't take this as gospel. If I recall (my diagnostics are not handy) the GENUINE 1882 coins or at least some of them show this mark inside the "2." That should be easy for someone to confirm today as I'm not going to take the time. Sorry.
**I see Tom already confirmed my memory of the "2's" in a post above.
The two "Omega's" that have been positively confirmed are a $20 and a $3. These were "signed." I personally believe he made a Type 3 one dollar that I detected during the same time period. This fake was also "State-of-the-Art." It displayed a tiny, sharp, nick in the "D" of United.
The omega Saint is the 1907 High Relief and it has an omega within the eagle's talon.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
You want PCGS to authenticate a known counterfeit as "genuine?" That would destroy all credibility in coin authentication.
Nope.
Where is the Omega mafia man when we need him
?
He's in China now. Why do "we need him?"
PCGS has slabbed 100's of U.S. counterfeit coins, both contemporary and modern, and purposely and inadvertently (and I'm talking above and beyond the 'Micro O family of Morgan dollar' counterfeits), so I'm not sure what your point is here. PCGS is a company staffed by humans, and as a result human errors occur where counterfeit coins slip through into slabs which are otherwise guaranteeing these counterfeits as authentic coins. So, no TPG has a 100% accuracy record of authenticating all the coins that pass through and rejecting all the counterfeits. Instead, probably 1 counterfeit coin in every 10,000 or 100,000 coins submitted (not including modern mint coins) ends up being slabbed - and probably 1 counterfeit coin in every 1,000 counterfeit coins submitted (purposely or inadvertently) gets rejected by a TPG; this is not counting coin alterations (such as added/removed mintmarks, dates, etc.).
The point is, are the TPGs gong to certify that an omega gold coin a "genuine" omega counterfeit? If so, I am opposed to that. These items do not deserve legitimacy.
No - of course they won't - not on purpose at least.
This thread caused me to check my 1854...damn, that's small real estate to check for an omega cartouche....
I know of three Omega C/F's in slabs as counterfeits. All are owned by folks who teach authentication classes. I don't know if NCG has put one into a slab for the ANA's use.
At a recent small local show (Greeley Colorado) one dealer had a gold type set in an older Capitol Plastic holder. About half the holes were empty. I was looking at the coins for higher-grade specimens worthy of purchasing. All the coins were average AU-UNC. Something looked a little off on the $3. The date was 1882. I looked at the "R" and the Omega mark was clearly there. I told the dealer it was an Omega counterfeit and that I would pay more than gold value for it. He didn't seem particularly impressed by my assertion or moved by my offer. I don't know what he plans to do with it, but I was not able to purchase it at that time. I might try again next time I see him.
If an Omega 1882 $3 has the proper gold content (currently worth about $260), what would a typical specimen be worth as a "collector's item" ?
I know I would pay a premium. I own an omega $20 and would love a few of his other pieces.
The repunched date is diagnostic for all "business" emissions. Conversely, an uncorrected date logotype (messy language, sorry) with pristine "8" is diagnostic for all proofs. Do i have that right, Tom?
This is correct. The pics in PCGS Coin Facts confirm what you are saying.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
TY
. I asked @CaptHenway because I knew Ron Guth when he was developing the initial CoinFacts, and he told me that Prof. DeLorey taught the guy who taught him about it. 
Yes.
TD
Probably Rick Montgomery or Mike Fahey.
Whatever the market will bear, but IMHO $50 over melt is more than fair.
LOL, named that tune in one note !