thoughts on if this Morgan is real or counterfeit? (Updates)
U1chicago
Posts: 6,841 ✭✭✭✭✭
What are your thoughts on if this Morgan is real or counterfeit?
Some more details: from what I was told, it came from a fire years ago so that is what explains the surfaces looking a bit weird. I was pretty sure it along with a few others like this were all real.
With the latest increase in silver I was planning on selling (under melt/ at the price of a cull) but when the LCS tested it on their sigma device, it did not scan correctly. He mentioned something about it testing 85% silver-which sounded weird to me. Can fire damage change the coin so that it doesn’t test properly?
1
Comments
Surfaces look odd.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Some sort of environmental damage? If I was going to go to the trouble of counterfeiting a Morgan dollar, I think I'd choose a scarcer date, but who knows?
I"m not certain at least some of the affect is lighting, but the surfaces appear intentionally pickled to me.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
With it wellstruck appearance I don’t see how it can be CF. How does it’s wt compare to others? How did you acquire it? 1880-S is a common date.
Genuine, definitely messed with some time in the past. I kinda like it.
Chinese don't go by that. When I visited there, for work about 20 years ago, there were literally BUCKETS of fake "US Dollar" coins...mostly morgans but also some older and some ripoff ASEs that had dates from 1906 and such.
No "rare dates" in the batches I saw. this was at a market.
Friend of mine, year prior to that, knew I collected and brought back 4 "US Dollar" coins...all 4 counterfeit. He couldn't tell. He thought he was doing me a solid. He spent $20usd for the 4 of them. That was at a night market.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
My first thought was metal movement but looking at the larger reverse photo I don't see any build up or haloing around any of the devices or letters. Additionally a similar surface texture is seen inside the gaps and loops of the letters. This makes me think something applied to the surface. The S mintmark while flat-fat is similar to some on the VAM list in link below. The letters and sheriffs appear good (none of those fat sheriffs or mismatch letter thicknesses that I could see). The obverse in the hair has some small dots, similar to rusty die dots, but I didn't check VAM for that or is it other. Above the wing on the left side there appears to be a small area where the surface is different or perhaps the 'stuff' is missing (if that is what it is)?
https://www.vamworld.com/wiki/1880_S_MintMark_Guide
https://youtube.com/watch?v=hYCRaWPlTIE Sophie Lloyd, guitar shred cover of Panama (Van Halen)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=dOV1VrDuUm4 Ted Nugent, Hibernation, Live 1976
RLJ 1958 - 2023
Genuine, altered surfaces.
The coin is genuine, what happened to the surface after
it left the mint I don’t know.
The coin looks genuine to me. But it falls somewhat short of being a “Gem”. 😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The 1880-S dollar is known for bright, sometimes Proof-like surfaces. This piece is pitted. It may have been pickeled in acid for a while which caused this. It is probably genuine, but no more than a couriosity or piece of bullion.
Agree, I think some folks used to call these 'burnt' with that dull color and look from being in the dip for way, way too long.
Over dipped, “cooked” coins are usually dull and white. This piece has pits, which don’t look like the result of physical contact.
Some more details: from what I was told, it came from a fire years ago so that is what explains the surfaces looking a bit weird. I was pretty sure it along with a few others like this were all real.
With the latest increase in silver I was planning on selling (under melt/ at the price of a cull) but when the LCS tested it on their sigma device, it did not scan correctly. He mentioned something about it testing 85% silver-which sounded weird to me. Can fire damage change the coin so that it doesn’t test properly?
@Tom_B and others does the above extra info help explain the surfaces?
If this was a big copper coin I'd think that it was a ground recovery piece and environmental damage, but copper is a much more reactive metal than silver. Perhaps it spent time in the ground... in an acidic environment?
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.
Did you try the ring test? Balance it on the tip of your finger next to your ear and tap the edge with a wooden pencil. Silver has a distinctive melodious ring.
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
I’ll try that later today.
Genuine. Cull condition. Always possible for the original silver mix to be bad on these (although quite rare).
“Land of the free because of the brave”
“Saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone”
In Deo solo confidimus
Member since 2026
Successful BST transactions with: Ted 1, JWP, bigjpst, Vetter,
I agree.
Treated surfaces after it was subjected to heat/fire.
Red R
Probably a keychain coin
Did I miss the weight? Your photo of the scale digital reading is blank. That might answer a lot of questions. If weight correct, I would also feel legit.
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
The scale showed 26.7
Real, just worth melt
Micah Langford - https://www.oldglorycoinsandcurrency.com/
@RedRocket said:
Genuine, altered surfaces.
I agree.
Treated surfaces after it was subjected to heat/fire.
Red R
This may be a first on this forum…
Some one re-posting and agreeing with their own comment…
😂