<< <i>For all it's worth, I'd start the VAM search with the 85-P's...
Hmmmm. Interesting style on the 8 of this 1885-P:
>>
TDN, I think you are on the right track!
The 9 on the coin in question looks quite thick on the right hand side and the 8 looks a lot like the 8 on the 1885. The 5 on the 1885 is thicker than on a geniuine 1895, but does not appear to be quite as thick as the 5 on the coin in question.
Well I just pulled out a gem 1885-P, in DMPL since I figure that's the one they'd try to alter to a proof. The one, eight and five are sure closer to the coin in question than the certified "real" 1895. But, that's a heck of a nice job though on the 9, if someone played with it.
I have just completed an close examination of the "questioned" 1895 Proof verses a PCGS 1885-P GEM(+) DMPLE Morgan in hand with a very clear and crisp stike. The examination reveals that the reverse lettering of "ONE DOLLAR" at the base of my 1885-P exemplar, shares several unique characteristics with the questioned "1895-Proof". The "O" in One and "O" in "Dollar" are the same font--- but are significantly different in overal size, with the first "O" presenting as a thinner less robust letter whereas the second "O" in dollar is thicker and more robust in aspect. Additionally the "D" in Dollar of the 1885-P DMPL is thicker in the veritical line, and not only resembles but appears (using photos for comparison) to be the same as the questioned "1895" proof. These similarities are absolutely absent on the pictured 1895 Proofs-- some having a historically documented provenance to the United States Mint. These data should not be interpreted to mean that other origins for the questioned coin are not viable alternatives as a complete examination of other characters of not only 1895-S examples should be viewed, but 1895-O material as well. The unique lettering sequence of the 1885-P and "questioned" 1895 however, are unequivically different from all certified 1895-Proofs so well pictured in this Forum. Unfortunately these questions can only be resolved by a full in hand examination of the subject 1895. It would be unfortuate if the coin is actually an authenitic 1895-0 for example with a filled MM, or struck through grease on the left wing, or something else as valuable and MORE rare than an ordinary '95 Proof Morgan.
Hello, just a few scans re my comments yesterday regarding the reverse lettering in general, denticles, and particularly the width of the negative space inside the "D" in "DOLLAR" compared to either leg the letter itself. I found an PCGS MS65 DMPL 1885-P Morgan reverse at DLRC. Interesting comparison. DMPL first below, then "the coin", then the genuine NGC 1895 Richmond Proofs followed by the Heritage NGC PR50 for comparison.
CORRECTION- I stated in the previous post just made that I had just completed "a close examination of the questioned 1895 Proof". The sentence was intended to read that thanks to those on the FORUM who suppied an ENLARGED PHOTO of the questioned 1895, I was better able to closely examine the characteristics of the lettering of this 1895 coin. I DID NOT personally view the "questioned 1895" in hand and regreat my wording was not precise. The only referred coin I was examining personally was my PCGS 1885-P Dmpl, (and others in my personal collection like an 1895-0, etc, not refered to in that post). I am sorry for any confusion and hope others will examine their own coins for chacteristics that may further our understanding of unique identifiers for 1895 impaired proofs, much like the "secret" die mark in the headband we, in part, employ to ID a real 1893-S Morgan.
As I thought, there are 4 obverse die varieties for the 1895 Proof Morgan.
I got the following directly from The Numismatist "Counterfeit Detection" Volume II.
Obverse Die 1: Numeral 1 in date to left of center over denticle. Left base of 1 over right half of denticle, right base of 1 over left edge of denticle. Lower part of serif of 1 shows repunching. Ball of 5 over right half of denticle. Date slants up slightly to the right.
Obverse Die 2: Numeral 1 in date centered over denticle. Left base of 1 over right edge of denticle, right base of 1 over left edge of denticle. Ball of 5 over right edge of denticle. Upper part of 5 shows repunching. The 9 on all specimens obversed displays a filled lower loop. Date slants up to the right.
Obverse Die 3: Numeral 1 in date to right of center over denticle. Left base of 1 over right edge of denticle, right base of 1 over left half of denticle. Ball of 5 above space between denticles. Date slants up to the right.
Obverse Die 4: Numeral 1 in date well to right of center over denticle. Left base of 1 over left edge of denticle, right base of 1 over center of denticle. Ball of 5 above space between denticles. Date is level.
Dollar in discussion. Kind of hard to tell but looks most like Obverse Die 3.
All of these were punched with the same date font, and none of the 8's in the date closely match the 8 in the date of the posted dollar as others have pointed out. Perhaps it's the original picture's resolution, but it doesn't look that close to any of these. I think a closer pic of the date of the dollar in discussion would help solve this mystery.
Again, note that all the holes of the 8's and the 9's in these proofs are rounded, whereas the holes of the 8 and 9 in "the coin" are thinner and more elliptical. Thanks for all the education guys.
Hi Rob790, invaluable work! OUTSTANDING! You have shown all 4 obverse dies and they seem to confirm what many were saying regarding the font. On "the coin" the openings in the numbers (look at the 8 and 9) are more angular and oblong., particularly in the top of the 9. I wonder if this will start to solve the mystery finally?
From the new information it seems like we can be 100% sure the coin is not a real 95. Now the only question is- what is it? An altered date? or outright counterfiet altogether? mike
I like the 85-P reverse photo! That pretty much rules out the possibility that the letters and digits on "the coin" did not match other 95's due to photographic distortion. As far as I'm concerned, this case is closed!
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Well, actually, there is one more possibility that could support the argument for authenticity. We know there are four obverse dies, but we haven't determined if they share the same reverse. In fact, it's unlikely. It would help if we had photos of the reverses that were paired with each of the 1895 obverse dies. If any of them match the reverse of "the coin" - which I highly doubt - we may need to reopen the case!
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
"From the new information it seems like we can be 100% sure the coin is not a real 95. Now the only question is- what is it? An altered date? or outright counterfiet altogether?"
If not genuine, the possibility that this coin is a die struck forgery is almost nil.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Hi All, I am going to try and find examples of each of the 4 obverses and post the reverses - if none match "the coin" (very, very unlikely) then this is 100% certainly not an 1895 Proof Morgan dollar. Look for results maybe tonite? Thanks to the many that offered help and suggestions in both PM's and in the threads - this is darn close to a closed Columbo file!
But let's not forget - there are SUPPOSED to be business strike 1895's....is there some reason that this could not be one of them? If so, it would be a major discovery, and would raise the question about where the others are.
But let's not forget - there are SUPPOSED to be business strike 1895's....is there some reason that this could not be one of them?
Fair enough. The most convincing way to condemn "the coin" would be to VAM attribute the coin to another year. But if you don't want to work that hard, how about showing us one other Philly reverse die from the mid-90's that matches the letter style of "the coin".
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Gonfunko- You may not be aware that there is a secret cabal "the 95 Club" who have been Pm 'ing each other all night on this coin. If and when we get some sleep believe me the mystery of the LOST only known business strike will come up. On another thread it was sugessted TDN secretly owns them all, however they stopped the speculation when the Club told them of TDN's plan to corner the market all the 1922 no D's and let no one finish their Lincoln collections! Seriously the 1885-P lettering on the reverse has some unique similarities to the questioned 1895-P. That's the closest we've come other than a 1895-S simple removed MM. See the photos earlier and my description in this thread around 4:30 AM or so.
<< <i>Gonfunko- You may not be aware that there is a secret cabal "the 95 Club" who have been Pm 'ing each other all night on this coin. If and when we get some sleep believe me the mystery of the LOST only known business strike will come up. On another thread it was sugessted TDN secretly owns them all, however they stopped the speculation when the Club told them of TDN's plan to corner the market all the 1922 no D's and let no one finish their Lincoln collections! Seriously the 1885-P lettering on the reverse has some unique similarities to the questioned 1895-P. That's the closest we've come other than a 1895-S simple removed MM. See the photos earlier and my description in this thread around 4:30 AM or so. >>
Makes sense, and upon reviewing the pictures again, I agree. I highly doubt that the coin in question is an 1895-P Morgan Dollar, Proof or otherwise.
1) It has squared off rims. Rare with a business strike. 2) There's a wire rim edge from 9 to 12 on the obverse. Once again, rare in Morgan business strikes. 3) The fields are clean. I mean clean. Business strikes, until you get to MS68 or so always have field debris. Proofs have polished planchets and clean fields. Once again, rare with a business strike. 4) The surface is not that of a business strike. It is special. And yes, I have that one from the horses mouth. Unknown in business strike. 5) The denticles have the correct look for a proof. Never seen this on a business strike. 6) Finally, the coin has been struck multiple times. They only did that with proofs and not on business strikes.
There's simply no evidence, in the photos, of an altered date or mintmark. Now, if it's in fact an altered business strike....from what? 1895? They don't exist. And a surviving business strike wouldn't look like a proof.
Finally, die variety with proofs is not conclusive. There are still new Morgan varieties being discovered all the time. I have four this year alone.
I don't know what it is, but I'm loving the discussion. This is one fascinating coin.
There have been a ton of well-informed and educational replies, but I'm still not convinced that whatever it is has been conclusively demonstrated.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
IF the coin is not genuine, I suggest that the simplest and most likely method of manufacture was:
1. Remove the second "8" from a genuine 1885 dollar. 2. Shave a genuine "9." Take extreme care not to mangle it. If first attempts to shave the "9" cleanly fail, try again on another coin until you "get it right." 3. Correctly position and affix the "9."
Removing an "S" from a genuine 1895 S wouldn't cut it for a skillful forger. Too easy to detect by a TPG. I cannot imagine that a removed "S" would get by a major TPG. If a major TPG (short list: PCGS, NGC, ICG, ANACS) determines that the coin is not genuine, I would bet my ICG MS62 1880 S that they find something wrong with the date, specifically with the "9."
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Removing an "S" from a genuine 1895 S wouldn't cut it for a skillful forger. Too easy to detect by a TPG. I cannot imagine that a removed "S" would get by a major TPG
Well, especially since the 95-S is a business strike.
"Well, especially since the 95-S is a business strike. "
True but many choice BU specimens of the 1895-S are brilliant prooflike according to Wayne Miller. More importantly, however, a nice 1895-S is a bit too risky to work with, given its high price, even for a skillful forger. Better to botch ten 1885's before coming up with a passable 1895 than screwing up one 1895-S.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
3) The fields are clean. I mean clean. Business strikes, until you get to MS68 or so always have field debris. Proofs have polished planchets and clean fields. Once again, rare with a business strike.
4) The surface is not that of a business strike. It is special. And yes, I have that one from the horses mouth.
Perhaps the coin was lightly whizzed to mask the luster disturbances caused by the alteration? It's not an unusual practice.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
A) a seemingly unique 1895 Proof Morgan $ - a lightly circulated Proof with obvious left wing deficiencies/problems yet clean fields, and several other problematic anomolies - unusual overall appearance, visibly troubling obverse die/date characteristics that can't be attributed to any of the 4 known obverse dies (and equally "unique" reverse characteristics etc.) along with a surface/luster appearance very different to the known authentic certified examples that range in grade from PR 50 to PR66.
or
Simply something else - like an altered 1885-P, which it seems to be and obviously shares many characterisics with as shown?
I don't see what is allowing so much generous slack to be given to "the coin" and its odd look - Are "fake" 1895's really that rare? What is there that really supports an authentic determination that would outweigh what has been shown here? Speaking for myself, it is obviously not an 1895 of any kind as I can't seem to find another mid 1890's P Morgan that shares the characteristics of "the coin". Further, we know that 'the coin" was not certified by PCGS - it was said the service would not be revealed (after its scheduled Friday engagament was cancelled) because it "would not be accepted in this discussion" or words to that effect. As every known authentic example that was used as "evidence" was certified by NGC save 1, I should think that an NGC slab would have been shown rather quickly?
Perhaps, you all will kindly look at the reverse photos on page 8 or so when MajiKbilly and I were pouring over the reverses (NOT THE DATES) to try to figure out what this was to start., I think the answer is clear when you also look at the 4 date types photed for a real 1895. Please read my description of the "O" 's and "D" on the reverse of an 1885-P. Why is the seemingly unique lettering of the 1885-P the same as the "questioned" 1895? Then compare/ look at the photo's that Magikbilly provided. And by the way, it's not like we didn't spend half the night looking for other date Morgans to match up the 1895 lettering. No luck. As for strike and proof surfaces--That's the reason I chose a Pcgs GEM+ 1885-P DMPL to compare it to in the first place! Both my 1885-P DMPL, and an 1885 Proof actually seem to have a sharper edge definition and detailed strike than even this "1895-P" does! And what prooflike surfaces are people seeing anyway-clean yes--but prooflike --come on!! By the way I want to thank TDN for some of his terse suggestions that were good leads in this issue. TDN is too nice in the last post. The 1895-S is one of the most banged up, baggy, and plain ugly business strike Morgans ever. Why damage a super clean MS-66 1895-S that's worth more than a common old 1895-P Proof anyway? If someone can find a better candidate than an 1885-P, I'm open to new evidence. And yes I really did hope it might be a failed "first" business strike in 1895 or I would not have spent all the time on this. IT IS NOT. Will check back later if another good starter coin emerges-- Bill P.
One problem with the 1885 alteration theory is when you try to overlay one over the coin in question. I tried it with both a business strike and proof, and in both cases the date punch is higher on the 1885 (the profiles, denticles and most other features are aligned perfectly). I have no clue how many obv dies were used on business strike 1885s so it's possible I just picked the wrong example.
1885 MS over the 1895 in question (date punch is a bit too high)
1885 PR over the 1895 (date punch is way too high)
When you overlay a certified 1895 proof over the 1895 in question it's a perfect match as far as date punch location goes. Some of the stars are slightly off but I think that's due to the questionable 1895 being imaged at a slight angle, making it a tad elliptical/wider east and west.
Hi, if "the coin" is wider horizontally in the image as opposed to reality, why are the negative spaces in numerals and letters still too narrow? Like inside the 8, 9 or the "D" and "O"'s etc? I am not saying "the coin" has not been "distorted" - I just don't think it was a camera that did it
Part of the reason we did focus on the reverse of the 1885-P was of course the large number of Obverse dies for this common date. I would be interested in knowing if your reverse lettering on your examples shows the same thing as some of our cited examples. Check for the same font but slightly different sizes of "O" in ONE DOLLAR" and the thickness of the vertical of the letter "D". They match the questioned 1895 on my examples in hand (and the DLRC coin to a less obvious extent photo-duplication distortion?). In general, we know there are so many dies for 1885-P, it will be improbable to ever get it perfect with so many different dies. It does look circa 1885 reverse though--and NOT 1895-S or the poorly struck 1895-O reverses. If the ower won't let us see the coin to understand what happened to protect other collectors, there's not much more that we can do. It is a private coin (why it posted is another issue). The pictures of the 4 real 1895 date types sure helped me though, as I thought there was only 1 date type 'till this thread!
I just read thru this whole thread - inteesting - (but distressing that there was a mini-war as to whether someone "dissed" another's photo skills and integrity by questioning whether an unusual looking 1895 was the real McCoy). My 1st reaction to the image of the coin was that it was scanned on a scanner because it looked so dull and lifeless. Then I realized from the context of the thread that it was an actual photo. Having owned a couple of Proof 1895's in the past, my 2nd reaction was that the "fabric" of "the coin" looked nothing like either of the 1895's that I owned (though mine were PR64 & Pr65 respectively). Nor did the image appear to be of a sharply struck proof coin, particularly as someone else noted the right eagle wing looked quite softly struck (but could have been lighting, though I got the impression from the context of the thread that Coppercoins is an excellent photographer & it would seem odd that he was unable to capture the full definition of a fully struck proof coin even if it were litely circulated). The examples of the 4 dates variations of the genuine 1895 Proofs were conclusive to me that "the coin" in question is NOT a genuine 1895 Morgan dollar made by the US Mint, and under no circumstances would I buy that coin for my collection. Further, I don't believe it would be a surviving business strike example - Why?
According to the Official US mint records, 12,000 1895 non-proof Morgan Dollars were struck by the US mint. Assuming 4 different obverse dies for the proof 1895s, it is most probable that the business strike examples would have also been struck from those dies - as I believe it was the practice of the Mint to use the proof dies to strike coins for circualtion after the dies were used for the proof strikings - (Maybe someone with a VAM book could verify whether or not the Proof dies were also used for circulation strikes for Morgan Dollars). If the proof dies were used to strike business stikes, 4 working dies would be more than sufficient to strike 12,000 1895 Morgan dollars, and therefore it would be quite unlikely that there was yet another obverse die that used the older punches for the numerals 1895 (but not impossible). If I could find my copy of Breen's book on US Proof coinage, I might be able to answer my own questions as to the use of the proof dies, but at the moment I can't locate it.
All in all, a most interesting thread
Collecting eye-appealing Proof and MS Indian Head Cents, 1858 Flying Eagle and IHC patterns and beautiful toned coins.
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain Newmismatist
I just hope the guy that owns this coin gets word of this thread. CD should alert the owner of this coin to the findings here no matter what his personel feeling are on this matter so the guy can have as good a shot as possible to be made whole on this coin from who ever it was bought from- CD's a good guy and I am sure he will do the right thing. mike
An amazing thread indeed. This coin is quite interesting - it defies being pidgeonholed. The numerals and lettering appear to be from the 1880's, yet the date placement is wrong for the 1885.
I think I'll go back to my Gobrechts, Seated and Trades now...
<<but distressing that there was a mini-war as to whether someone "dissed" another's photo skills and integrity by questioning whether an unusual looking 1895 was the real McCoy>>
Are we reading the same thread?
Best and thanks for the knowledgeable observations, Billy
Comments
<< <i>For all it's worth, I'd start the VAM search with the 85-P's...
Hmmmm. Interesting style on the 8 of this 1885-P:
>>
TDN, I think you are on the right track!
The 9 on the coin in question looks quite thick on the right hand side and the 8 looks a lot like the 8 on the 1885. The 5 on the 1885 is thicker than on a geniuine 1895, but does not appear to be quite as thick as the 5 on the coin in question.
BTW, is this THE Jack Lee?
Best,
Billy
<< <i>Hi Er, read back a few pages.
Best,
Billy >>
Yeah right.
just a few scans re my comments yesterday regarding the reverse lettering in general, denticles, and particularly the width of the negative space inside the "D" in "DOLLAR" compared to either leg the letter itself. I found an PCGS MS65 DMPL 1885-P Morgan reverse at DLRC. Interesting comparison. DMPL first below, then "the coin", then the genuine NGC 1895 Richmond Proofs followed by the Heritage NGC PR50 for comparison.
PCGS 1885-P MS65 DMPL DLRC
........................
"The coin"
NGC 1895 PR64 Richmond DLRC
NGC 1895 PR63 Richmond DLRC
NGC 1895 PR50 Heritage
Best,
Billy
I got the following directly from The Numismatist "Counterfeit Detection" Volume II.
Obverse Die 1: Numeral 1 in date to left of center over denticle. Left base of 1 over right half of denticle, right base of 1 over left edge of denticle. Lower part of serif of 1 shows repunching. Ball of 5 over right half of denticle. Date slants up slightly to the right.
Obverse Die 2: Numeral 1 in date centered over denticle. Left base of 1 over right edge of denticle, right base of 1 over left edge of denticle. Ball of 5 over right edge of denticle. Upper part of 5 shows repunching. The 9 on all specimens obversed displays a filled lower loop. Date slants up to the right.
Obverse Die 3: Numeral 1 in date to right of center over denticle. Left base of 1 over right edge of denticle, right base of 1 over left half of denticle. Ball of 5 above space between denticles. Date slants up to the right.
Obverse Die 4: Numeral 1 in date well to right of center over denticle. Left base of 1 over left edge of denticle, right base of 1 over center of denticle. Ball of 5 above space between denticles. Date is level.
Dollar in discussion. Kind of hard to tell but looks most like Obverse Die 3.
All of these were punched with the same date font, and none of the 8's in the date closely match the 8 in the date of the posted dollar as others have pointed out. Perhaps it's the original picture's resolution, but it doesn't look that close to any of these. I think a closer pic of the date of the dollar in discussion would help solve this mystery.
.
Thanks for all the education guys.
"the coin" on top , The Heritage NGC PR50 below
Hi Rob790,
invaluable work! OUTSTANDING! You have shown all 4 obverse dies and they seem to confirm what many were saying regarding the font. On "the coin" the openings in the numbers (look at the 8 and 9) are more angular and oblong., particularly in the top of the 9. I wonder if this will start to solve the mystery finally?
Best wishes,
Magikbilly
Well, we'll see - there are MANY Lt. Columbo's in here!
Billy
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Well, actually, there is one more possibility that could support the argument for authenticity. We know there are four obverse dies, but we haven't determined if they share the same reverse. In fact, it's unlikely. It would help if we had photos of the reverses that were paired with each of the 1895 obverse dies. If any of them match the reverse of "the coin" - which I highly doubt - we may need to reopen the case!
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
If not genuine, the possibility that this coin is a die struck forgery is almost nil.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
I am going to try and find examples of each of the 4 obverses and post the reverses - if none match "the coin" (very, very unlikely) then this is 100% certainly not an 1895 Proof Morgan dollar. Look for results maybe tonite?
Best,
Billy
Fair enough. The most convincing way to condemn "the coin" would be to VAM attribute the coin to another year. But if you don't want to work that hard, how about showing us one other Philly reverse die from the mid-90's that matches the letter style of "the coin".
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Gonfunko- You may not be aware that there is a secret cabal "the 95 Club" who have been Pm 'ing each other all night on this coin. If and when we get some sleep believe me the mystery of the LOST only known business strike will come up. On another thread it was sugessted TDN secretly owns them all, however they stopped the speculation when the Club told them of TDN's plan to corner the market all the 1922 no D's and let no one finish their Lincoln collections! Seriously the 1885-P lettering on the reverse has some unique similarities to the questioned 1895-P. That's the closest we've come other than a 1895-S simple removed MM. See the photos earlier and my description in this thread around 4:30 AM or so.
Makes sense, and upon reviewing the pictures again, I agree. I highly doubt that the coin in question is an 1895-P Morgan Dollar, Proof or otherwise.
My reasons this is a proof coin are as follows:
1) It has squared off rims. Rare with a business strike.
2) There's a wire rim edge from 9 to 12 on the obverse. Once again, rare in Morgan business strikes.
3) The fields are clean. I mean clean. Business strikes, until you get to MS68 or so always have field debris. Proofs have polished planchets and clean fields. Once again, rare with a business strike.
4) The surface is not that of a business strike. It is special. And yes, I have that one from the horses mouth. Unknown in business strike.
5) The denticles have the correct look for a proof. Never seen this on a business strike.
6) Finally, the coin has been struck multiple times. They only did that with proofs and not on business strikes.
There's simply no evidence, in the photos, of an altered date or mintmark. Now, if it's in fact an altered business strike....from what? 1895? They don't exist. And a surviving business strike wouldn't look like a proof.
Finally, die variety with proofs is not conclusive. There are still new Morgan varieties being discovered all the time. I have four this year alone.
Case closed. In my book.
Large photos.
Free Trial
There have been a ton of well-informed and educational replies, but I'm still not convinced that whatever it is has been conclusively demonstrated.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
1. Remove the second "8" from a genuine 1885 dollar.
2. Shave a genuine "9." Take extreme care not to mangle it. If first attempts to shave the "9" cleanly fail, try again on another coin until you "get it right."
3. Correctly position and affix the "9."
Removing an "S" from a genuine 1895 S wouldn't cut it for a skillful forger. Too easy to detect by a TPG. I cannot imagine that a removed "S" would get by a major TPG. If a major TPG (short list: PCGS, NGC, ICG, ANACS) determines that the coin is not genuine, I would bet my ICG MS62 1880 S that they find something wrong with the date, specifically with the "9."
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Well, especially since the 95-S is a business strike.
<< <i>Welcome to the Wooden Box II >>
Is there a movie or cliff notes version, 'cause I ain't reading the whole thing.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
True but many choice BU specimens of the 1895-S are brilliant prooflike according to Wayne Miller. More importantly, however, a nice 1895-S is a bit too risky to work with, given its high price, even for a skillful forger. Better to botch ten 1885's before coming up with a passable 1895 than screwing up one 1895-S.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
True, except the strike and overall fabric of a PL 95-S looks nothing like "the coin".
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
3) The fields are clean. I mean clean. Business strikes, until you get to MS68 or so always have field debris. Proofs have polished planchets and clean fields. Once again, rare with a business strike.
4) The surface is not that of a business strike. It is special. And yes, I have that one from the horses mouth.
Perhaps the coin was lightly whizzed to mask the luster disturbances caused by the alteration? It's not an unusual practice.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Andy, anything's possible. We don't have the coin in hand to examine it. Not being an evil coin doctor though, I usually error on the side of good.
Free Trial
I wonder which is a more likely scenario;
A) a seemingly unique 1895 Proof Morgan $ - a lightly circulated Proof with obvious left wing deficiencies/problems yet clean fields, and several other problematic anomolies - unusual overall appearance, visibly troubling obverse die/date characteristics that can't be attributed to any of the 4 known obverse dies (and equally "unique" reverse characteristics etc.) along with a surface/luster appearance very different to the known authentic certified examples that range in grade from PR 50 to PR66.
or
I don't see what is allowing so much generous slack to be given to "the coin" and its odd look - Are "fake" 1895's really that rare? What is there that really supports an authentic determination that would outweigh what has been shown here? Speaking for myself, it is obviously not an 1895 of any kind as I can't seem to find another mid 1890's P Morgan that shares the characteristics of "the coin".
Further, we know that 'the coin" was not certified by PCGS - it was said the service would not be revealed (after its scheduled Friday engagament was cancelled) because it "would not be accepted in this discussion" or words to that effect. As every known authentic example that was used as "evidence" was certified by NGC save 1, I should think that an NGC slab would have been shown rather quickly?
Best,
Billy
Hi there,
BTW, I don't think Wooden Box I is completed just yet. The L&C pouch was a spin off..
Best
Billy
1885 MS over the 1895 in question (date punch is a bit too high)
1885 PR over the 1895 (date punch is way too high)
When you overlay a certified 1895 proof over the 1895 in question it's a perfect match as far as date punch location goes. Some of the stars are slightly off but I think that's due to the questionable 1895 being imaged at a slight angle, making it a tad elliptical/wider east and west.
Just figured I'd further confuse things
if "the coin" is wider horizontally in the image as opposed to reality, why are the negative spaces in numerals and letters still too narrow? Like inside the 8, 9 or the "D" and "O"'s etc? I am not saying "the coin" has not been "distorted" - I just don't think it was a camera that did it
Best,
Billy
According to the Official US mint records, 12,000 1895 non-proof Morgan Dollars were struck by the US mint. Assuming 4 different obverse dies for the proof 1895s, it is most probable that the business strike examples would have also been struck from those dies - as I believe it was the practice of the Mint to use the proof dies to strike coins for circualtion after the dies were used for the proof strikings - (Maybe someone with a VAM book could verify whether or not the Proof dies were also used for circulation strikes for Morgan Dollars). If the proof dies were used to strike business stikes, 4 working dies would be more than sufficient to strike 12,000 1895 Morgan dollars, and therefore it would be quite unlikely that there was yet another obverse die that used the older punches for the numerals 1895 (but not impossible). If I could find my copy of Breen's book on US Proof coinage, I might be able to answer my own questions as to the use of the proof dies, but at the moment I can't locate it.
All in all, a most interesting thread
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
I think I'll go back to my Gobrechts, Seated and Trades now...
Are we reading the same thread?
Best and thanks for the knowledgeable observations,
Billy