Home U.S. Coin Forum

It's a Jungle Out There- Two Different "Families" of Large Cent Counterfeits!

burfle23burfle23 Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited April 9, 2022 4:12PM in U.S. Coin Forum

From the Internet some of the examples that can be found for sale in several current selling venues. Can you see offhand what is actually wrong with them B) ?

For a detailed description you can review my latest Coin Week article at https://coinweek.com/counterfeits/its-a-jungle-out-there-later-date-large-cent-counterfeits/?fbclid=IwAR0umjWqf-3pp4OF7qrtJovaugADAEGwqgfQO1gQAYTdTD1lW4Nu8XeSAK0

Comments

  • lkeneficlkenefic Posts: 8,169 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Font on the dates seem to be off... especially so on the 1857... the 7 sticks out. The surfaces on the 1851 look odd. Doesn't scream counterfeit (to me otherwise) but its definitely a coin I'd pass on... common date and plentiful in reasonably nice condition.

    Collecting: Dansco 7070; Middle Date Large Cents (VF-AU); Box of 20;

    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.
  • seanqseanq Posts: 8,701 ✭✭✭✭✭

    My eye was drawn to the lips, they look a bit puckered to me, but I admit I am not a specialist in large cents and I could have easily been fooled by these.

    Sean Reynolds

    Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.

    "Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
  • Walkerguy21DWalkerguy21D Posts: 11,547 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Nothing screams counterfeit to me either, other than the date on the ‘57.
    But I don’t like the surfaces and color of either and would pass in a heartbeat.

    Successful BST transactions with 171 members. Ebeneezer, Tonedeaf, Shane6596, Piano1, Ikenefic, RG, PCGSPhoto, stman, Don'tTelltheWife, Boosibri, Ron1968, snowequities, VTchaser, jrt103, SurfinxHI, 78saen, bp777, FHC, RYK, JTHawaii, Opportunity, Kliao, bigtime36, skanderbeg, split37, thebigeng, acloco, Toninginthblood, OKCC, braddick, Coinflip, robcool, fastfreddie, tightbudget, DBSTrader2, nickelsciolist, relaxn, Eagle eye, soldi, silverman68, ElKevvo, sawyerjosh, Schmitz7, talkingwalnut2, konsole, sharkman987, sniocsu, comma, jesbroken, David1234, biosolar, Sullykerry, Moldnut, erwindoc, MichaelDixon, GotTheBug
  • LanceNewmanOCCLanceNewmanOCC Posts: 19,999 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 9, 2022 6:48PM

    the date on the 51 is laughable, as are many in the large cent counterfeit families. if an authentic date were put next to that one, it would be beyond obvious. usually i would call this type of date, the "spaghetti noodle date type." in my experience, this is one of the common situations with an undated master die or hub and then dates/numbers are added to working dies. there are even instances where they may have a master die with 18XX and then either add the 3rd and/or 4th digit. the color is obviously off and i highly doubt either weighs correctly.

    the 57 is a little better but the overall surfaces make you want to look closer. i'd say the color is a bit off, even for a dark large cent. w/o having a side-by-side on the date for the 57, i'd say it looks a little big, even for a large date. is that a common diagnostic gouge in the right field?

    edited to add. just saw the link below the images. is that an 1857 small date fake in the article?

    <--- look what's behind the mask! - cool link 1/NO ~ 2/NNP ~ 3/NNC ~ 4/CF ~ 5/PG ~ 6/Cert ~ 7/NGC 7a/NGC pop~ 8/NGCF ~ 9/HA archives ~ 10/PM ~ 11/NM ~ 12/ANACS cert ~ 13/ANACS pop - report fakes 1/ACEF ~ report fakes/thefts 1/NCIS - Numi-Classes SS ~ Bass ~ Transcribed Docs NNP - clashed coins - error training - V V mm styles -

  • rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The 1851 looks like a cheap copy... especially the date. Not sure on the '57... Cheers, RickO

  • burfle23burfle23 Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 10, 2022 4:08AM

    @LanceNewmanOCC said:
    the date on the 51 is laughable, as are many in the large cent counterfeit families. if an authentic date were put next to that one, it would be beyond obvious. usually i would call this type of date, the "spaghetti noodle date type." in my experience, this is one of the common situations with an undated master die or hub and then dates/numbers are added to working dies. there are even instances where they may have a master die with 18XX and then either add the 3rd and/or 4th digit. the color is obviously off and i highly doubt either weighs correctly.

    the 57 is a little better but the overall surfaces make you want to look closer. i'd say the color is a bit off, even for a dark large cent. w/o having a side-by-side on the date for the 57, i'd say it looks a little big, even for a large date. is that a common diagnostic gouge in the right field?

    edited to add. just saw the link below the images. is that an 1857 small date fake in the article?

    Yes, 2 counterfeit large, one small date '57 but 2 different families!

    Genuine examples in the middle courtesy PCGS CoinFacts.

  • Walkerguy21DWalkerguy21D Posts: 11,547 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 10, 2022 4:56AM

    The surfaces on the 1840 shown above look okay, but the date is clearly bogus. And the biggest tell of all is that it’s a Mature head, not a Petite head.

    Successful BST transactions with 171 members. Ebeneezer, Tonedeaf, Shane6596, Piano1, Ikenefic, RG, PCGSPhoto, stman, Don'tTelltheWife, Boosibri, Ron1968, snowequities, VTchaser, jrt103, SurfinxHI, 78saen, bp777, FHC, RYK, JTHawaii, Opportunity, Kliao, bigtime36, skanderbeg, split37, thebigeng, acloco, Toninginthblood, OKCC, braddick, Coinflip, robcool, fastfreddie, tightbudget, DBSTrader2, nickelsciolist, relaxn, Eagle eye, soldi, silverman68, ElKevvo, sawyerjosh, Schmitz7, talkingwalnut2, konsole, sharkman987, sniocsu, comma, jesbroken, David1234, biosolar, Sullykerry, Moldnut, erwindoc, MichaelDixon, GotTheBug
  • jesbrokenjesbroken Posts: 10,144 ✭✭✭✭✭

    As said, the 1851 date is too obvious. I felt the 1857 a little better of a counterfeit. I did notice rather quickly that the jawline on the counterfeit was lower than on the genuine and more curved.
    Good eye, Greg. I was not familiar enough with this series to realize the 1940 had a Mature vs Petite head difference.
    Jim


    When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln

    Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
  • burfle23burfle23 Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 10, 2022 5:39PM

    Edited due to my confusion!

  • Walkerguy21DWalkerguy21D Posts: 11,547 ✭✭✭✭✭

    And the large date variety:

    Successful BST transactions with 171 members. Ebeneezer, Tonedeaf, Shane6596, Piano1, Ikenefic, RG, PCGSPhoto, stman, Don'tTelltheWife, Boosibri, Ron1968, snowequities, VTchaser, jrt103, SurfinxHI, 78saen, bp777, FHC, RYK, JTHawaii, Opportunity, Kliao, bigtime36, skanderbeg, split37, thebigeng, acloco, Toninginthblood, OKCC, braddick, Coinflip, robcool, fastfreddie, tightbudget, DBSTrader2, nickelsciolist, relaxn, Eagle eye, soldi, silverman68, ElKevvo, sawyerjosh, Schmitz7, talkingwalnut2, konsole, sharkman987, sniocsu, comma, jesbroken, David1234, biosolar, Sullykerry, Moldnut, erwindoc, MichaelDixon, GotTheBug
  • LanceNewmanOCCLanceNewmanOCC Posts: 19,999 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @burfle23

    my initial intent was just to do a date comparison because my memory was a little fuzzy about JUST how large the large date is and that it isn't as off on the fake as i thought it might have been BUT as if often the case, it is amazing what we will trip over on random journeys like this. i was happy to live under the umbrella that the 1857 fake is from transfer dies BUT, (i've only looked at this part in comparison) the hair curls above the date are just too off for that.

    SO, is it a transfer die coin that was made to be dateless and this coin as well will match another years marriage? OR, are there any late-dates with such lower hair detail? something i'll have to dig into another time. i have some large items ready for shipping and i HAVE to get them out tomorrow morn.

    whaddya think?

    <--- look what's behind the mask! - cool link 1/NO ~ 2/NNP ~ 3/NNC ~ 4/CF ~ 5/PG ~ 6/Cert ~ 7/NGC 7a/NGC pop~ 8/NGCF ~ 9/HA archives ~ 10/PM ~ 11/NM ~ 12/ANACS cert ~ 13/ANACS pop - report fakes 1/ACEF ~ report fakes/thefts 1/NCIS - Numi-Classes SS ~ Bass ~ Transcribed Docs NNP - clashed coins - error training - V V mm styles -

  • burfle23burfle23 Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Walkerguy21D are you stating both 1840's are counterfeits? The small date matches a genuine example, so I have to admit I am confused in my own post B) !

  • Walkerguy21DWalkerguy21D Posts: 11,547 ✭✭✭✭✭

    No, my posted coins are genuine….at least I hope they are! Sorry for the confusion.
    I was posting them to compare with the fake 1840 previously posted.

    Successful BST transactions with 171 members. Ebeneezer, Tonedeaf, Shane6596, Piano1, Ikenefic, RG, PCGSPhoto, stman, Don'tTelltheWife, Boosibri, Ron1968, snowequities, VTchaser, jrt103, SurfinxHI, 78saen, bp777, FHC, RYK, JTHawaii, Opportunity, Kliao, bigtime36, skanderbeg, split37, thebigeng, acloco, Toninginthblood, OKCC, braddick, Coinflip, robcool, fastfreddie, tightbudget, DBSTrader2, nickelsciolist, relaxn, Eagle eye, soldi, silverman68, ElKevvo, sawyerjosh, Schmitz7, talkingwalnut2, konsole, sharkman987, sniocsu, comma, jesbroken, David1234, biosolar, Sullykerry, Moldnut, erwindoc, MichaelDixon, GotTheBug
  • burfle23burfle23 Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭✭✭

    A recent internet listing:

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file