Confirmed Certified Counterfeit 1882 GB Shilling

burfle23

A friend from "across the pond" sent me a note that this internet listed 1882 shilling is counterfeit.

He wrote a short article on this and his 1863 as counterfeits using handmade dies; cites the dates are way off to genuine examples.

I have included images of the subject example in the PCGS slab as well as images from his article.

Comparison images of this one on the left to a genuine one on the right courtesy PCGS CoinFacts.

Thoughts appreciated!

neildrobertson

The busts don't really match at all either between those two coins

Rexford

Counterfeit

neildrobertson

Is the holder also counterfeit, or did PCGS let one slip by?

Rexford

Holder looks genuine

7Jaguars

Hmmm, that is embarrassing. This is a rare date and finally managed to get a slabbed IMO genuine example in MS66.

burfle23

It is definitely off; owner sent me the cert number and this image;

robp2

The 1863 & 1882 counterfeits look to be made from the same obverse, which is clearly wrong. The easiest way to differentiate between 2nd/3rd and 4th head is to examine the lowest hair to the right of the ear. The hair curls make a reversed curl on the first two, but the 4th is curled in one direction only. It is also composed of distinct parallel lines as seen. In the case of the c/feits, these are too pronounced.

The font of both dates is clearly wrong and should be as the genuine 1882 with fatter loops to the 8.

Other obvious differences include the tie knot, which appears to be a square rather than a ribbon loop viewed at a slight angle and the oak leaf edges are too diffuse and insufficiently irregular. This may be due to a soft impression taken when making the copy. Compare the finer detail with a reasonably high grade reverse showing some wear and the weakness is quite apparent.

burfle23

Thank you @robp2 . Is this a contemporary counterfeit or recent?

wybrit

I used to own a pair of these. Dates on the fakes look tooled. The first was certified by PCGS as MS64. The other by NGC as MS66 (this last one was in my possession for only a short time).

wybrit

And, as Rob P. pointed out, the hair on the fakes is all wrong. The portrait doesn't even look like any of the four young head obverses. Look at the contour of the neck and how the nose is pointier, with a wider nostril, plus the more pronounced chin - it doesn't match any of the portraits on the shilling.

burfle23

There are so many discrepancies with the reverse to wonder how this one was certified...

Genuine image on the right courtesy Heritage:

burfle23

Love researching stuff like this!

Found another example; images of site and translated "story":

coinkat

some contemporary counterfeits really can be collectable...

burfle23

Research suggests this one was "coined" in the 1970's and came from a collection of British coins in the 1980's. Appears it was submitted for certification in 2014; cert has been removed...

burfle23

@coinkat said:
some contemporary counterfeits really can be collectable...

Although not "contemporary" I am told these are highly collectable as well.

7Jaguars

Ah well, I for one avidly collect Vicky silver but don't touch the counterfeits.

burfle23

@7Jaguars said:
Ah well, I for one avidly collect Vicky silver but don't touch the counterfeits.

Not many recognized this as a counterfeit!

coinkat

The LOL is meant to recognize your commentary even though it does not measure the frustration that you have endured as a collector...

It reminds of one of my own experiences with a Morgan Dollar 1902-o micro o that was deemed to be counterfeit. I suspect my experience may not make you feel better but there are experts and I maybe this should end before my further pontification.

burfle23

@neildrobertson said:
Is the holder also counterfeit, or did PCGS let one slip by?

Genuine holder; have it in hand now.