1798 S-158 Large Cent Counterfeit Attribution

Zoins

With the improvements in die struck counterfeits, I've become more and more weary of low grade early coins, with the reasoning being that wear can hide counterfeit details.

Here's an article by Jack D. Young / @burfle23 on CoinWeek discussing the 1798 "S-158" / 1st Hair Style Large Cent, referencing a struck counterfeit that was slabbed by multiple top TPGs and sold by top ranked auction houses. This was researched by EAC members and published in the Penny-Wise publication. The great thing about the story here is that once the fakes became known, the TPGs are able to handle this under their grade guarantee. Of course, while some people want to get reimbursed, others may want to keep these as collectibles and may even pay a premium for them!

While I've grown weary of these coins, if I were going to buy them, I'd buy them from large auction houses and top TPGs that have strong incentives to make collectors whole, which is what this article talks about. It's also important to be part of the collector groups for the coins of choice, e.g. EAC, LSCC, etc.

Do you collect low grade early Federal coinage or colonials? If so, how do you protect yourself?

Struck Counterfeit Coin of the Week: An Interesting 1798 “S-158 Large Cent” + 1-Page Attribution Guide

https://coinweek.com/counterfeits/struck-counterfeit-coin-week-interesting-1798-s-158-large-cent-1-page-attribution-guide/

Here's a short excerpt from the article covering the diagnostics.

@burfle23 said:
In the fall of 2015 a fellow EAC’er (member of the Early American Coppers Club) alerted the EAC Copper Notes group to an apparent deceptive fake 1798 large cent, changing how many of us view the hobby going forward! From the discussions this prompted in that forum and the following Penny-Wise articles written on the subject we suddenly became aware of a new level of “struck counterfeits” (actually I’ve been told the correct term is fake, replica, etc. since early copper isn’t “current currency”), so genuine appearing that this one, and ultimately many others were in top tier TPG holders. This example, a supposed “S-158” appeared to be a new variety, an “improbable die state” as another respected long-time EAC member noted, or in fact fake.

The “Y” in LIBERTY was too long for any known 1798 large cent, the reverse die break was partially tooled away as not seen for this variety before, and there were a series of blemishes including “dimples” on the bust as struck. The notice of this one opened the floodgate, as I found another example on eBay, then another member reported a 3rd, and then a 4th appeared again on eBay, eventually adding up to eight total documented examples currently, all with common “dimples”, scratches and other circulation marks, which just can’t be. These are all apparently in the dies, impressing these common identifiers in all examples struck; individual pieces have other marks, damage and inflicted “weathering”, possibly to try to hide the truth, but a diligent eye can still help flush them out.

Here are the diagnostic images from the article:

Walkerguy21D

Fantastic post, and sleuthing accomplished.

This part has me curious though:

** The “Y” in LIBERTY was too long for any known 1798 large cent, **

Why would that be? Was the Y re-engraved by the counterfeiter?

ricko

Thank you for an informative post. While I have always admired early copper, I have not ventured into the field (except for a couple of large cents I acquired many years ago). This information makes me super cautious, and should I decide to get some early copper, I will do further research and get published information to study before purchases. Cheers, RickO

Namvet69

I am grateful for the examinations done and all the published results. Staying informed is important. Peace Roy

burfle23

@Walkerguy21D said:
Fantastic post, and sleuthing accomplished.

This part has me curious though:

** The “Y” in LIBERTY was too long for any known 1798 large cent, **

Why would that be? Was the Y re-engraved by the counterfeiter?

Yes, the "Y" was re-engraved and most of the reverse die break of that die state tooled away as well.

burfle23

I actually presented a draft of this article to a Sr. member of Secret Service in a meeting Beth Deisher and the ACTF set-up in DC a few years ago; got a follow-up call from a Texas CBP Agent due to the location of the perpetrators.

Zoins

@burfle23 said:
I actually presented a draft of this article to a Sr. member of Secret Service in a meeting Beth Deisher and the ACTF set-up in DC a few years ago; got a follow-up call from a Texas CBP Agent due to the location of the perpetrators.

Very cool! There's a lot of great information in this article Jack!

I was wondering if there's a counterfeit variety designation assigned to this?

It would be great if there was such a designation and ICG used it in their yellow education slabs. Auction houses could even add the designation to their lot listings if they don't want to remove them.

burfle23

Really no designation other than as seen on the label of this example:

Zoins

@burfle23 said:
Really no designation other than as seen on the label of this example:

Good to know. Is there a reason there's no designation other than no time?

It seems like having one, like the VAM folks do, would make these discussions a lot easier.

burfle23

My three examples:

All three certified genuine by a TPG.

burfle23

@Zoins said:

@burfle23 said:
Really no designation other than as seen on the label of this example:

Good to know. Is there a reason there's no designation other than no time?

It seems like having one, like the VAM folks do, would make these discussions a lot easier.

Really hadn't considered it; time and scope. I have designated die sates for two varieties where the counterfeiters tried to "enhance" the fake varieties.