The origin of counterfeit micro o Morgans: a fascinating theory

coindeuce

In the latest issue of the SSDC VAM-e newsletter(Volume 4, Issue 9)
ANACS grader/authenticator/variety specialist John Roberts
proposes a fascinating and plausible theory on the origin of the "micro" o mintmark Morgan dollars of 1896, 1900, 1901 and 1902 which have been designated as counterfeit since spring of 2005 by the major TPG's. For the forumites that aren't SSDC members, I'll offer a hint at the context of the theory: casino's, Cuba, organized crime.

GoldenEyeNumismatics

I'm willing to bet money their not fakes. A single repeating depression (which is what PCGS uses to justify their "counterfeit" claim) really doesn't mean squat.

STONE

I still don't think they're fake. When I find a well ciculated one, I'll cut it in half and see whats inside.

Myqqy

For the forumites that aren't SSDC members, I'll offer a hint at the context of the theory: casino's, Cuba, organized crime

For those of us that aren't members, can you give us a little more than that?

Zoins

<< <i>I still don't think they're fake. When I find a well ciculated one, I'll cut it in half and see whats inside. >>

It doesn't matter what the composition is because even with the same composition as the real thing there were times when you could double your money making these based on the prevailing price of silver.

STONE

Interesting One more silver dollar saved from worthless destruction

I still think they're legit!!!

coindeuce

<< <i> For the forumites that aren't SSDC members, I'll offer a hint at the context of the theory: casino's, Cuba, organized crime

For those of us that aren't members, can you give us a little more than that? >>



John presents a case for the possibility that these alleged counterfeits could have originated as late as the 1950's in pre-Castro Cuba, in particular from the Havana casinos operated by La Cosa Nostra. The most compelling point of this theory relates to clear evidence that absolutely no reference to these is known to be documented before this time period, despite the fact that references existed as relating to the other dates in the series with micro o mintmark(1880, 1899)

Frankcoins

The proper silver content of a Morgan dollar was worth about 70 cents in the 1950s. Doesn't seem very worthwile to make these under this theory.

I have never seen how "repeating depressions" BY THEMSELVES can condemn a coin as fake. Hubs can easily pick up dents which can be transferred to the working dies and then to the struck coins. And since the dates were punched in to each working die, finding the same depressions on coins spanning over a few years is not impossible.

MrEureka

The most compelling point of this theory relates to clear evidence that absolutely no reference to these is known to be documented before this time period...

It's like deja vu all over again! Where are John Kleeberg and Ted Buttrey?

Coxe

There are several reasons to seriously question the authenticity of those varieties. Nonetheless, they are highly collectible, perhaps moreso in their infamy. For those who don't know, this racket went beyond the micro o ones to others, perhaps some with no mint marks. The hunt for clues and new ones is ongoing and one of the more interesting things for a VAM detective to work on.

BTW, the only thing I hope we don't have to deal with are people making counterfeits of these and polluting the market.

dcarr

I had a fairly high-grade 1902-O Micro o.
Even without looking at the mint mark, the whole coin had a fake look to it.
They are definitely counterfeits.

Coxe

<< <i>I had a fairly high-grade 1902-O Micro o.
Even without looking at the mint mark, the whole coin had a fake look to it.
They are definitely counterfeits. >>



I remember that coin.....I bought it from you on eBay. It was the nicest 1902-o micro o I have come across too.

Steve27

" I'm willing to bet money their not fakes. A single repeating depression (which is what PCGS uses to justify their "counterfeit" claim) really doesn't mean squat. "


From the PCGS press release:

"In fact, one of the suspect coins was sent for elemental testing and it came back 94% silver and about 6% copper!"


That's the real proof indicating they're all fake.

pb2y

These mico o Morgans fooled everyone---for a while.

http://coincollector.org/archives/002476.html

RWB

However, in several documents from the late 1880s A. Loudoun Snowden and others refer to a process used to make counterfeit coins that easily fooled all of the senior people at the Philadelphia Mint and Mint HQ. Weight, ring, alloy, reeding, etc. were normal. Snowden describes making some bronze cents by this process and having them declared genuine by the Coiner, Engraver, M&R, etc. The perpetrator was in custody and showed Snowden how to do it. Unfortunately, no one describes the process in enough detail to understand what it was/is. But mint officials were very concerned about the possibility of this processing getting into the hands of other counterfeiters. Comments on this process seem to end about 1904-06.

CaptHenway

Don't have one handy. How do the reeding counts compare to New Orleans coins of those years?
TD

MrEureka

Have any uncirculated pieces been identified? I'd like to see what the luster looks like, compared to other coins known to be real.

CaptHenway

<< <i>The most compelling point of this theory relates to clear evidence that absolutely no reference to these is known to be documented before this time period...

It's like deja vu all over again! Where are John Kleeberg and Ted Buttrey? >>



It's like deja vu all over again!

DennisH

Is that the same article that appeared in VAMview issue #10 in December 2007?

coindeuce

<< <i>Have any uncirculated pieces been identified? I'd like to see what the luster looks like, compared to other coins known to be real. >>


No. Not a single unc. with micro mintmark from 1896, 1900 or 1902 has been found(or identified).