1894 cent struck on a nickel alloy planchet (mint error or trial?)
Coincollection123
Posts: 39 ✭
Here is a 1894 cent I bought, vf condition and holed. At first sight it look plated but when I weighted it weight 3.73g. A normal 1894 cent should only weight 3.11g. It look to me to be made of nickel alloy, and not plated. The coin has some spots on it which are die rusts (not corrosion). The hole used to be used as a necklace. To me this coin look genuine and not a cast or modern forgery. A forgery coin has poor details throughout. Especially noticeable in the necklace and feathers on the obverse. This coin is sharp in every element. This coin strike is sharper than normal cent even as nickel is a harder alloy than copper.
It is not struck on a 5cents planchet as the size is different, also not 3 cent as it ended in 1889. There are some 1880s cent struck in foreign nickels planchet, but these coins show some of the peripheral design and are all weakly struck. 
Weight of this coin compare to a normal 1898 Indian cent. 
Pictures of the coin: (The scratch above the head is a scratch on the surface and not die scratch)
This coin compare to a normal 1898 Indian cent. (This coin inner rim is thicker than a normal one)
This coin is slightly thicker than a normal 1898 cent 
Why I think this coin is a 1894 cent:
It has been holed at some point, making the date incomplete, but the shape of the 4 can be made out as the last digit with a good eye, and the last feather on the Indian's headdress points between the C and A in AMERICA, meaning this coin was struck after 1885, leaving 1894 as the only possible date with 8 as the 2nd digit and 4 as the last digit with that design.
Comments
That coin was at one time nailed to something. Perhaps it was found by someone who was building a barn, thought it unusual, and used it to commemorate the building of the barn. The nailing of coins to such structures was common in the 19th century. Why it is in that metal is a mystery. Was the US Mint striking coins for other countries during that period? It could have been struck on a left over planchet that had become stuck in the machinery.
The bubbles on the surface would suggest it's a cast copy.
Yes, I think there is a strong possibility that it is an older (vintage) casting.
Just a look at the nose and mouth will tell you it is a counterfeit
Look at the internal space inside the O of ONE
It is too small
Given the bumps on both sides... the funky thickness of ONE CENT... and also looks like pretty thick lettering on LIBERTY.... I lean towards cast counterfeit.
I bet it's a counterfeit 1864. Didn't we have one a few weeks ago that had the CA mistake on it?
Could be a cast coin, but my biggest problem is that normally a cast coin will not be so defined as this one. I know that thickness of the letter is weird, but the strike is too sharp for a cast.
Normally a cast coin has many pit holes on its surface and its detail are stuck together
Cast counterfeits do not have pits into they have raised pimples as yours does
Those bumps all over the coin are a sure sign of issues. No idea how they escaped the scrutiny of the OP's analysis. The lettering as noted is also wrong.
No amount of sharp detail changes that.
Could be a cast coin, but still a cool old coin.
Here is a picture I found online of a die rust cent
An 1864 would be the "type 1" with lowest feather pointing between the "IC". This one points to the "CA", which means it was molded after a "type 2" coin of 1886 or later.
I wrote it on the top but I will write it again.
Why I think this coin is a 1894 cent:
It has been holed at some point, making the date incomplete, but the shape of the 4 can be made out as the last digit with a good eye, and the last feather on the Indian's headdress points between the C and A in AMERICA, meaning this coin was struck after 1885, leaving 1894 as the only possible date with 8 as the 2nd digit and 4 as the last digit with that design.
There is no copper-nickel foreign coin circa 1894 or 1904 that corresponds to this weight, even allowing for the hole.
A counterfeit is not a coin.
That is a cast counterfeit cent.... The entire coin, bumps, thick letters, face et al just scream fake. Cheers, RickO
The coin, if real, uses the obverse die type adopted in the latter part of 1886 so it will not be dated earlier than that. The raised marks that are clearly visible almost look like what you see on metal auto parts that were chrome plated but have deteriorated after being subjected to the elements for a long period of time. Why would anyone fake a coin like this, let alone fake the dies in such a proficient manner? This piece demands closer study.
"Why would anyone fake a coin like this"
It may have been made by someone practicing casting small metal parts.
Many times coins are copied for a belly dancer's belt.
There are many reasons why coins are copied but in this case it would be hard to say exactly why.
"let alone fake the dies in such a proficient manner?"
There are no dies used when making a cast counterfeit.
My point is that I am not convinced that it is cast. The metal used may have been of the alloy that deteriorates in such a way that is resembles a casting when it is exposed to the elements for a long period.
I understand what you are saying, as an example a zinc cent will sometimes show similar bubbles when exposed to the elements. Heat can also produce similar bubbles on a coin. The combination of the bubbles, extra thickness and wrong weight would suggest a cast copy.
Actually, the counterfeiting of cents was a problem in 1894. A well respected friend of mine who must remain nameless sent along this clipping from the NY Times from 1894. He noted that there is no way of telling if it refers to this specific piece, as there were apparently multiple counterfeiters in operation.
Edited to add: Hmmm. Can't see the image. Let me fiddle with it.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6027503/uploads/editor/oy/rdjmnseungla.pdf
Take two:
Yes. And so did the counterfeit in a thread from a few weeks ago. That was my point. It's was an ebay listing that a forum member recognized as counterfeit because it had a type 1 date with a type 2 "feather"
moot
this is a counterfeit -- dateless
It's not really moot. It explains the "planchet" size.