1795 FH Dollar and 1800 Dollar-poor pics. Real or Fake? Opinions, please-UPDATE
TPRC
Posts: 3,794 ✭✭✭✭✭
A friend of mine is considering a coin purchase that includes 2 early dollars. The pics are attached below, but are not very good and on first glance, look funky. However, I cannot tell from the pics if it is the toning, or if these are fake. May I solicit opinions from those more knowledgeable than me?
Tom
1
Comments
I am no expert but the 1800 looks fake to me. The 1795 is probably fake as well but there is a slim chance it could be legit. I wouldn't buy either one.
Both are fakes and not very good ones.
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
Hard pass... both are counterfeit.
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.
agree ... both fake
Top 10 Cal Fractional Type Set
successful BST with Ankurj, BigAl, Bullsitter, CommemKing, DCW(7), Downtown1974, Elmerfusterpuck, Joelewis, Mach1ne, Minuteman810430, Modcrewman, Nankraut, Nederveit2, Philographer(5), Realgator, Silverpop, SurfinxHI, TomB and Yorkshireman(3)
I wouldn't touch them.
We’re/Are they both plated?
Even if they were real, I would pass. They're butt ugly.
Early American Copper, Bust and Seated.
Look counterfeit to me.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Pass
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
Message received and passed on. Thank you all.
Tom
I vote bad on both counts. Neither is at all convincing.
Bad to the bone.
Both items appear to be fake.... Cheers, RickO
Well, looks, and bad pix, can be deceiving. Today, I had a chance to view these pieces in hand. I am not a professional, though I am experienced, and I believe that they are entirely authentic. They were from an old collection and were purchased for $20 and $35, respectively, and they were in old envelopes. Some were in cellophane as well. I don't know where that price point places them in history but I'm guessing it was a long time ago, and likely pre-1950. The entire collection is very old. Several have pvc damage, and some of it looks unrestorable. I am not sure if cellophane has pvc in it, but several coins I saw had considerable pvc. What a pleasure to view a few of these pieces from this old-time collection!
Question, which is the best service to evaluate for restoration?
Tom
I cannot tell anything from those pictures.
I fully understand and opined that they likely were fakes from the pics only, as well.
Tom
No and no
It's a bummer if PVC has wrecked the surfaces,
apparently making them look like pebbled cast surfaces to so many people in this thread.
I checked the die varieties, using the attribution wizard at:
http://www.earlydollars.org/wizardhome.htm
The 1795 is a match to BB-20, B-2, R-3. [typo corrected]
http://www.earlydollars.org/wizarddata.asp?ID=21
The 1800 is a match to BB-196, B-17, R-2
http://www.earlydollars.org/wizarddata.asp?ID=172
What do they weigh? And do they test as .890 silver? Is the diameter correct for the type?
My first impression was that they're real, but previously cleaned and have since developed a bizarre mottled toning, probably over decades of improper storage. I've seen Bust coinage with toning so thick and oddly formed that they could easily be mistaken for counterfeits with artificial patinas. I'm going to go against the grain here a bit but, IMO, if you can confirm the information I mentioned above matches that of genuine examples, I would not dismiss them as fake just yet.
One feature, in the case of the two coins above, that I feel speaks to their authenticity, is the recutting visible at the stars on the obverse, as well as their having lettered edges. These characteristics are almost always absent in the counterfeits I've encountered.
In my opinion when the die marriages match known die marriages along with an in hand inspection, odds to me are the collector who is holding is to be believed.
Thanks much. I had confirmed the 1800 variety at B-17, but not the 1795 as the B-2 (It is). the 1800 is also a late die state with a lot of cracks.
The pics were of incredibly poor quality, so it is understandable. That pebbled cast surfaces toning appears to be original toning from old envelopes. But the 1795 also has a lot of old pvc, and I am not sure where it came from because it was just in an envelope. And, as someone mentioned, it almost looks plated, though I doubt that it is. it will be evaluated for restoration by PCGS in due time. I do think the 1795 is probably restorable. However, there was also a Vancouver commemorative in the group that looked too far gone.
Can anyone opine when a fine 1795 flowing hair might have been $35, or when an xf 1800 might have been $20. That just seems incredible!
Tom
I cannot believe it, but I forgot to weigh them. As soon as I saw them, I announced to my friend that they were real. I'll make sure that gets done. And at least one of the dollars, and maybe both had a lot of recutting of the stars. The edges were a bit funky and irregular, which caused me a bit of concern, initially, but I concluded that this was just an anomaly of the type.
Tom
wow! didn't see that coming! The surfaces looked like a cast copy to me. I'm becoming more of a fan of plastic for coins like this. Even if they get into a Genuine holder at least I know that an expert has evaluated it "in-hand"... Best of luck with the sale...
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.
I don't see anything that screams counterfeit based on the photos. The toning is borderline environmental damage and very similar to toning patterns I have seen on coins held for long periods of time in envelopes. Better photos are needed, but I'd be optimistic.
-Paul
Great to see you posting again Paul. Hope all is well!
Latin American Collection
1795 weighs 26.72 grams. Book says 26.96. 1800 weighs 26.99 grams. Book says 26.96.
Tom
From the 1960 Blue Book
From the 1959 Red Book
https://youtube.com/watch?v=wwmUMvhy-lY - Pink Me And Bobby McGee
.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=D0FPxuQv2ns - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Maybe I'm Amazed
RLJ 1958 - 2023
Knowing what I know now I would not even consider buying either one of this type of coin unless it was certified by PCGS, NGC or ANACS.
There is even risk in that by ways of fake holders but your odds are much better in a slab.
You were wise to post your question here.
Looking at the photos, the expression on Ms. Liberty’s face on 1800 dated piece does not look right to me. I would never buy that piece from those pictures. The 1795 is better, but still seems off.
The toning is type you get when you clean or dip a silver coin and store it in a run of the mill old coin envelope.
If a major grading service says they are genuine, great. But from where I sit, it would be a pass.
Here are some certified examples. Compare the general look of these with the coins in the OP. They are not the same die varieties.
1800
1795 Flowing Hair
A high grade, AU-58, Bust Dollar at an angle
A dead on shot of the previous coin.
That's a good sign for the Draped dollar, and it seems close enough for the Flowing hair since it's heavily worn, especially considering this series is known for having weight/purity adjustments post striking.
I'm still in the might-be-real camp. If they test as .890 silver and the diameter measures within a tenth of a millimeter or so, I'd risk the $50-ish dollars to get them graded. As mentioned by another forum member, the grade they receive is not of as much importance as simply having them authenticated and encapsulated by a reputable TPG.
If they come back fake, you're out $50-ish bucks, but walk away with some knowledge gained.
Those two look terrible. I would pass on them.
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
Agreed, there is no reason to buy them when there are so many confirmed genuine examples with less problems to be found.