Real or Fake Morgan and Slab

Vasanti

Maybe it’s just the pictures, but something looks weird with this one.

djm

The front and the back of the slab are two different generations.

lilolme

I think the slab is trying to be a Gen 4.6.
https://www.pcgs.com/holdermuseum/Gen4.6
But it appears to have a couple things that are not correct.

Also that date - The first 8 is kind of .... well ...... not looking good.

EDIT:
The barcode scans good.
I messed the last one up. So I am not seeing things again or am I? The first 8 looks no good - too short.
Add one from coinfacts below it.

MetroD

@djm said:
The front and the back of the slab are two different generations.

NOT challenging you, but I am trying to learn.

To me, it looks like it might be a GEN 4.6 holder.
What are you seeing that is anomalous?

dollarfan

Wow, I would like to see this in hand

Vasanti

@dollarfan said:
Wow, I would like to see this in hand

I have it. Happy to post closeups or anything. It just doesn’t look kosher to me.

coinbuf

The holder looks like a gen 4.5, and aside from the coffee stains it seems fine. The coin is listed as part of a registry set, so I'm going to say it is fine also.

lilolme

@Vasanti said:

@dollarfan said:
Wow, I would like to see this in hand

I have it. Happy to post closeups or anything. It just doesn’t look kosher to me.

The first thing I noticed was the first 8 in the date. It looks to short. But I am wondering if that is in the lighting of the photo. So can you confirm what the 8 looks like? Does it look like the 2nd 8?

Also is the slab plastic as clear as it appears or is it textured? It should have some texture or roughness to it. This could also be due to the photo.

I have one I am looking at in hand. With the label color being a gradient it looks like a 4.6.

https://www.pcgs.com/holdermuseum/Gen4.6

The fonts look good compared to the museum of holders and the one I have. Also the inner ring holding the coin looks good (these are almost always off).

Another thing you could confirm is if the label has small dots that get larger as the color shifts from top to bottom. Here is a link to a previous thread comment that show what I am asking about. Using a loop it is more obvious. Looking at the photo I was a yes good and then a maybe. Just hard to tell from that photo.

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/13264145/#Comment_13264145

MFeld

The coin looks genuine to me and my guess is that the imaging/lighting is playing tricks on some viewers.

MetroD

Re - the first "8" in the date looking too short.

VAMs are not my area, so please excuse me if this is ignorant.

Could the coin in the OP possibly be a "VAM-83, High 1"?

Top Image: the non-VAM coin (PCGS #7074)
Middle Image: the OP's images
Bottom Image: the "VAM-83, High 1" variety (PCGS #134043)

Edited to add images.

Vasanti

More pictures.

lilolme

@MetroD said:
Re - the first "8" in the date looking too short.

VAMs are not my area, so please excuse me if this is ignorant.

Could the coin in the OP possibly be a "VAM-83, High 1"? Reference

.
Ah good spot. I think it could be but like you I am just a casual VAM observer. When I first looked at the thread the first 8 jumped out as too short and that sets the mind. It looks shorter than the second 8 (and short to the top of the 7) to me even now. I am now thinking and was questioning in my initial post if it was a photo thing. The other items I noted about the holder are also potential photo things (clear plastic and color gradient). As noted in prior 2nd post when I compared to mine the fonts and other stuff look good.
Just looked at that 8 again and it just doesn't look right but I am thinking it is the photo and me.

MFeld

@Vasanti said:
More pictures.

The coin still looks genuine.

Vasanti

Thanks Mark and everyone else!

lilolme

@Vasanti said:
More pictures.

Good pictures.
Ah... that 8 looks good / the same. Thanks, I can get some sleep now.
Also the texture to the plastic and the dots to the label. It all looks good.

ricko

The first 8 looks good to me.... However, the 1 looks high, making the 8 look small. It may be a VAM, of which I know very little. Cheers, RickO

ifthevamzarockin

The coin & holder looks genuine to me.

ProofCollection

Looks legit to me.

Vasanti

Thanks all!

alefzero

Always a good thing to be able to attribute the die variety. Fake Morgans rarely match known ones and 1878 VAMs have been exhaustively studied and documented. In this case, it is a VAM-83 and is genuine from everything I see.

M4Madness

I have four Carson City Morgans. All are in PCGS holders, but only two have TrueView. All of these counterfeit threads have me so nervous that when I purchase the nine remaining that I need for a complete set, I'll specifically search out and only buy ones that have TrueView.

MFeld

@M4Madness said:
I have four Carson City Morgans. All are in PCGS holders, but only two have TrueView. All of these counterfeit threads have me so nervous that when I purchase the nine remaining that I need for a complete set, I'll specifically search out and only buy ones that have TrueView.

If you buy from knowledgeable and reputable sellers (of which there are many), TrueViews are unnecessary.

M4Madness

@MFeld said:

@M4Madness said:
I have four Carson City Morgans. All are in PCGS holders, but only two have TrueView. All of these counterfeit threads have me so nervous that when I purchase the nine remaining that I need for a complete set, I'll specifically search out and only buy ones that have TrueView.

If you buy from knowledgeable and reputable sellers (of which there are many), TrueViews are unnecessary.

The two without TrueViews came from out-of-state dealers with high feedback on eBay. But that still doesn't alleviate my fears that they themselves might have been duped. My plan is to eventually get those two photographed and reholdered.

MFeld

@M4Madness said:

@MFeld said:

@M4Madness said:
I have four Carson City Morgans. All are in PCGS holders, but only two have TrueView. All of these counterfeit threads have me so nervous that when I purchase the nine remaining that I need for a complete set, I'll specifically search out and only buy ones that have TrueView.

If you buy from knowledgeable and reputable sellers (of which there are many), TrueViews are unnecessary.

The two without TrueViews came from out-of-state dealers with high feedback on eBay. But that still doesn't alleviate my fears that they themselves might have been duped. My plan is to eventually get those two photographed and reholdered.

High feedback scores on eBay don't always equate with good sellers. I've seen terrible sellers with 100% feedback, who know how to avoid negative feedback
.
That aside, I had mentioned dealing with sellers who are "knowledgeable and reputable". Those who meet such qualifications are highly unlikely to miss and sell counterfeits, And at the same time, in the unlikely event that they do, they'll make good on the transaction. But if you feel better only buying coins with TrueViews, go with that.

jfriedm56

Everything looks right to me. The holder along with the Morgan just has that real look. Label looks correct as does the back of the holder. I’d say genuine.

messydesk

The coin is a genuine VAM 83. Not sure I would have GTG'ed 64, but it's real.

telephoto1

@messydesk said:
The coin is a genuine VAM 83. Not sure I would have GTG'ed 64, but it's real.

This is 100% my opinion as well. IMO there's a lot of activity on the coin for a 64 grade.

lilolme

@MFeld said:

@M4Madness said:

@MFeld said:

@M4Madness said:
I have four Carson City Morgans. All are in PCGS holders, but only two have TrueView. All of these counterfeit threads have me so nervous that when I purchase the nine remaining that I need for a complete set, I'll specifically search out and only buy ones that have TrueView.

If you buy from knowledgeable and reputable sellers (of which there are many), TrueViews are unnecessary.

The two without TrueViews came from out-of-state dealers with high feedback on eBay. But that still doesn't alleviate my fears that they themselves might have been duped. My plan is to eventually get those two photographed and reholdered.

High feedback scores on eBay don't always equate with good sellers. I've seen terrible sellers with 100% feedback, who know how to avoid negative feedback
.
That aside, I had mentioned dealing with sellers who are "knowledgeable and reputable". Those who meet such qualifications are highly unlikely to miss and sell counterfeits, And at the same time, in the unlikely event that they do, they'll make good on the transaction. But if you feel better only buying coins with TrueViews, go with that.

.
.
I will add to this that the 'known' (there is probably a better word) numismatics auction houses like Heritage, Legend, Stacks... and others are similar to the "knowledgeable and reputable" dealers. Very unlikely to get a counterfeit slab and coin through them and if you do the same thing about getting the problem fixed.

PCGS has an app for reading pcgs bar codes (and NFC but that requires having the slab in hand). Some fake slabs the barcode is not correct. However, some it is so this is only one test.
PCGS Cert Verification
https://www.pcgs.com/apps

Also review the slabs you currently have and compare to available information (museum of holder, slab security page, various thread information like this one) for what they should look like. Then when a fake slab comes along see if they start becoming more apparent. They should.

coastaljerseyguy

@ricko said:
The first 8 looks good to me.... However, the 1 looks high, making the 8 look small. It may be a VAM, of which I know very little. Cheers, RickO

Ricko is right. When someone mentioned VAM 83 I knew I had one and refreshed my understanding of this VAM. Agree the OP coin has all the right makers. Indeed it is a high 1 rather than a low 8 since the 878 positioning match with the rest of the 1878P. Per Vamworld, VAM 83 is a unique die marriage, no other VAMS share the same obv/rev (II/I - B1d).

What I understand for 1878, the complete date was punched into the Master Die, copied to each Working Hub then to each individual working die. There should be no Date variation, far left, far right, etc. There could be date doubling from striking but the date should be fixed on the working dies. So then how did the 1 get higher? This is the only 1878 Morgan with that anomaly. Looking at the 1 in the date and how it is doubled on the side, plus all the doubling on the obv, assuming the new working die created had the date punched high or low. Then the rest of the digits were polished off and struck again with the high 1. Seems like a lot of work to fix a minor deviation. Vammer help appreciated on how this occurred.

messydesk

@coastaljerseyguy said:

What I understand for 1878, the complete date was punched into the Master Die, copied to each Working Hub then to each individual working die. There should be no Date variation, far left, far right, etc. There could be date doubling from striking but the date should be fixed on the working dies. So then how did the 1 get higher? This is the only 1878 Morgan with that anomaly. Looking at the 1 in the date and how it is doubled on the side, plus all the doubling on the obv, assuming the new working die created had the date punched high or low. Then the rest of the digits were polished off and struck again with the high 1. Seems like a lot of work to fix a minor deviation. Vammer help appreciated on how this occurred.

Yeah, there's a lot that doesn't make sense on the first few months of 1878 Morgans. About all I can come up with is that in addition to the date being in the hub, there were hubbing issues that caused the engraving department to need to use individual punches normally used to make dies for medals to fix things. Take a look at the obverses of VAMs 163 (train wreck 1st U in PLURIBUS), 187 (escaping R in PLURIBUS), and 121 (I/R in PLURIBUS).

Vasanti

Crazy!

coastaljerseyguy

Wow those are some amazing VAMS. Let me get my chisel and I'll make it better .

Vasanti

@coastaljerseyguy said:
Wow those are some amazing VAMS. Let me get my chisel and I'll make it better .

AUandAG

I think it's just fine. But, what would I know? Still learning after 50 years.

bob