Pine Tree - REAL or NO REAL - ANSWER in first Post

JZrarities

Real or Fake?

Results this weekend.



----------------------- Original Post Above --------------------
Current Statistics when answer revealed:

Total Votes: 86

Real 21 (votes) 24.42 (%)
Fake 39 (votes) 45.35 (%)
No Clue 26 (votes) 30.23 (%)


ColonialCoinUnion wins the NUMISMATIC SLEUTH Award when he uncovered
the following picture from the Smithsonial Exhibition website:



It is the Same Coin as the left one in my picture. I never thought someone would find an online picture of the same coin.

Below is my Original Picture I took when I visited the National Numismatic Collection before it was taken down from display.
Apologies for the bad photo and lighting. Almost 2:1 believed it was fake, our Colonial Expert on this board thought it was Real.



I never said it was a single coin (didn't cross my mind at the time, and I didn't want to influence the poll) just Real or Not Real.
Hope you had fun. Merry Christmas all.

ColonialCoinUnion

Real.

STONE

Where's the "No Clue" button

GoldenEyeNumismatics

I have no experience with these but they don't look to be real, IMO

tightbudget

Something looks funny about it...no real for me!

JZrarities

<< <i>Where's the "No Clue" button >>



ADDED !!!

cmerlo1

I have no idea, but I'll guess and say 'real' based on the detail I'm seeing...

1794half1839

If CCU says its real, I am going to take his word for it.

mgoodm3

<< <i>If CCU says its real, I am going to take his word for it. >>



I have to second that.

messydesk

Hey, one side's bigger than the other. If CCU says real, who am I to say "no real." Instead I shall say "no Euclidean."

CoinRaritiesOnline

Real.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

SpaceMonkey

have to go with the experts... would that be a Noe 2?

/ed

CaptHenway

What color is it in real life?

lordmarcovan

I voted "fake" because... well... I can't really say. It strikes me as being "off", somehow. Can't put my finger on it, exactly.

(Edit- maybe it was the color that struck me wrong, somehow.)

But if CCU voted "real", I would bow to his superior knowledge in the matter.

JZrarities

<< <i>What color is it in real life? >>



Kinda the grey color as you see it.

I took the pictures on a greyish background and didn't try to bring out the color.

numisma

Fake! It is a copy of Noe-2, as revealed by a couple of clues.

Shamika

The edges look nice. Too nice if you ask me.

But if ColonialCoinUnion says it's real...

jonathanb

I don't have a clue myself.

CCU and numisma -- since you both seem sure about opposite conclusions, how about putting a few more words behind your descriptions, explaining how you can came to your conclusions?

Or better yet, explain how you came to your conclusions and then explain how someone could interpret it the other way?

(I know that attributing these pieces can be VERY difficult. Many years ago, the local dealer showed me a counterfeit-detection set he had purchased. The set had lengthy writups of how to detect counterfeits of various types, and it also had examples of each of the counterfeits so you could see a "real fake" in hand. (No, I don't know where you could get a set like that. It was pretty neat.) Anyway, he pulled it out one day and showed me the pine tree shilling in the set, and pointed out a bunch of reasons it looked "not not right". He was right on -- it slabbed as authentic. And that was out of a set of "definite" counterfeits!)

ziggy29

I'll say fake. Not because I see a red flag, but because if I see something like this which isn't authenticated by a professional opinion I trust, I assume it's fake unless I really know the diagnostics for an authentic specimen. Not always right, but it does prevent one from getting gypped.

kryptonitecomics

My first insticct was Fake so I am sticking with that.....obviously I don't have any experience with these so my opinion isn't based on numismatic knowledge......just a feeling............

numisma

Or better yet, explain how you came to your conclusions and then explain how someone could interpret it the other way?

1) First glance said 'not real'

2) Then, to be sure, you double check things. The next thing that seems off is the thickness. That piece seems to be putting off a lot of shadow for a coin that should be very thin. But that could be due to the position of the light source and other factors.

3) The color is off and the surfaces seem too smooth for a large planchet Pine Tree shilling. Also, why does the shape seem different between the two pics?

4) Then I look for diagnostics: the dot between M and N on the date side is in the wrong position for Noe-2. Most everything else seems correct in terms of size and location. My guess is that this is a cast copy from a genuine Noe-2. What is the weight?

5) Maybe John and Dave are just kidding? Maybe I am wrong?

Gotta drive my son to school....

SpaceMonkey

<< <i>5) Maybe John and Dave are just kidding? Maybe I am wrong? >>



possible... just to show how much we should learn for ourselves! But.. because of the fact I really don't know for sure... i would have to trust the experts... it sure looks real to me... but then again... I would never buy one raw.

this is turning into a very interesting thread!

/ed

BlindedByEgo

Thanks for entering me in your generous giveaway!

dorkkarl

definitely fake

K S

lathmach

Since it's a Shilling, it should be made of silver.
What's the real color of it?

Ray

jmski52

Fake is my guess. I don't know about the alloy, but like some have already mentioned, it doesn't "look" right.

BECOKA

I have no clue but something in the color and strike seems off so I would say fake.

ColonialCoinUnion

I said 'real' because saying "It looks OK to me but I can be positive without you mailing it to me" takes all the fun out of a chatroom query, and because I don't see an obvious indication that the OP's coin is not a genuine Noe-2 (compared to several examples from Stack's Ford sale and their various shapes, colors and degrees of clipping):




I also do not think that the color and surface smoothness can really be assessed in the OP's photo and so I wouldn't condemn the coin based on that.

Ditto the shadow cast as an indicator of the edge thickness.

Or the difference in size between the obv and rev, which I assume was the result of an amateur photographer stitching the two images together - though I'll admit I did wonder if they were two separate coins since the shapes don't seem to be an obvious match. I assumed the OP was 'playing it straight' and asking about 1 coin though.

Finally, the placement of the dot between the M and N on the reverse (as Numisma pointed out) looks OK to me, and may have seemed odd to him based on the proximity of the edge clip in the photo.

Having said all that, in hand inspection, viewing the edge and weighing it would be necessary to be 100% sure - and so I would not buy it as real based only on the OP's photo.

Sunnywood

Appears OK, but to my eye, the obverse & reverse pictured are not even the same shape. I cut the image in half, resized the reverse to match the obverse, and then flipped & rotated the reverse image to try to match the perimeter shape of the obverse. However, I couldn't get them to line up. So to me, they appear not to be the same coin. So the whole thing begins to seem very odd.

If I were just looking at the obverse, or at the reverse, I would be more inclined to vote "real."

Sunnywood

PerryHall

<< <i>Appears OK, but to my eye, the obverse & reverse pictured are not even the same shape. I cut the image in half, resized the reverse to match the obverse, and then flipped & rotated the reverse image to try to match the perimeter shape of the obverse. However, I couldn't get them to line up. So to me, they appear not to be the same coin. So the whole thing begins to seem very odd. >>



Agree. I had the same thought (two different coins). One pic shows a coin that seems much more heavily clipped than the other.

ColonialCoinUnion

Well, the OP's obv is a dead-on match for this Noe-2 in the Smithsonian, but not a match for that same coin's reverse:




Which means the OP is jerking us around.

I'm not sure I get the point of this.

mgoodm3

That last bit is intesesting. The obv is real, but a coin in the smithsonian. The rev is a different coin of undetermined realness.

Longacre

Just to protest this thread, I am not putting a sticker on that coin.

messydesk

So it's looking like I was right after all in my assertion that the reverse was a different size than the obverse, and that the coin exists only in a non-Euclidean world that is governed by rules that allow two sides of a closed, three-dimensional object to be on two non-intersecting objects. What do I win?

Sunnywood

messydesk, that would sure be one interesting spatial geometry that allowed two different sides of a planar polygon to have dissimilar shape !!

CCU, nice pic of the Noe-2 from the Smithsonian ... now THAT looks like the real thing !!!!!!

Sunnywood

JJM

I have no experience with these but they don't look to be real, IMO

ColonialCoinUnion

<< <i>CCU, nice pic of the Noe-2 from the Smithsonian ... now THAT looks like the real thing !!!!!!

Sunnywood >>



It's the exact same coin as shown in the OP's obverse photo (albeit under totally different lighting conditions) - right down to the unusual toning pattern on the left and lower rim.

JZrarities

Well, it looks like CCU found out the Truth.

Time to reveal the Answer in the original post...

ColonialCoinUnion

<< <i>I never said it was a single coin (didn't cross my mind at the time, and I didn't want to influence the poll) just Real or Not Real. >>



True. Sorry for the 'jerking us around' comment - I thought it was a trick.

As an aside, it is interesting that the Smithsonian example of a Large Planchet Pine Tree Shilling included an obv and rev of this same scarce Noe-2 variety.

The obv coin was a gift of the Norweb family, and is thus one of the few Noe varieties missing from the otherwise comprehensive run of Pine Tree Shilling varieties in Bower's October, 1987 sale of the Norweb Collection.

JZrarities

<< <i>True. Sorry for the 'jerking us around' comment - I thought it was a trick. >>



No Problem; understandable.

I thought if I said it was two separate coins (photographed in that bad of lighting) that everyone would have voted Fake.

Even then,, almost 2-to-1 thought it was Fake, probably because they weren't slabbed.

I am impressed that you found the same coin online.

I guess I can't play the same game again with my other pictures...

messydesk

<< <i>messydesk, that would sure be one interesting spatial geometry that allowed two different sides of a planar polygon to have dissimilar shape !!

CCU, nice pic of the Noe-2 from the Smithsonian ... now THAT looks like the real thing !!!!!!

Sunnywood >>


A hyperbolic geometry wherein the sum of the measures of a triangle must be less than 180 degrees would allow such a polyhedron to exist. Unfortunately, photography in such a geometry would not produce usable results, as there are no such things as similar triangles that form the basis of accurate Euclidean magnification. Instead, there would be a distortion dependent on the degree of magnification.

Of course, now that I know that both coins are both real and Euclidean, my hyperbolic numismatics conjecture is out the window (non-rectangular, convex quadrilateral with angle sum of less than 360 degrees -- I've removed one of these from our house once).

numisma

How did they have those coins mounted? Were they lying flat or on a vertical surface? And I don't know about the Smithsonian, but the British Museum used a lot of exact replicas for their numismatic collection. Some of the British Museum copies are very convincing.

kryptonitecomics

<< <i>

<< <i>messydesk, that would sure be one interesting spatial geometry that allowed two different sides of a planar polygon to have dissimilar shape !!

CCU, nice pic of the Noe-2 from the Smithsonian ... now THAT looks like the real thing !!!!!!

Sunnywood >>


A hyperbolic geometry wherein the sum of the measures of a triangle must be less than 180 degrees would allow such a polyhedron to exist. Unfortunately, photography in such a geometry would not produce usable results, as there are no such things as similar triangles that form the basis of accurate Euclidean magnification. Instead, there would be a distortion dependent on the degree of magnification.

Of course, now that I know that both coins are both real and Euclidean, my hyperbolic numismatics conjecture is out the window (non-rectangular, convex quadrilateral with angle sum of less than 360 degrees -- I've removed one of these from our house once). >>



Yes that's exactly what I was thinking... +1

Cgb

Looks real, IMHO.

Sunnywood

Yes, but even in a hyperbolic geometry with a two dimensional (curved) planar surface, the non-Euclidean polygon on that surface would have the same shape if you "flipped it over" and looked at the other side ... except for the change of sign on the curvature, of course, going from convex to concave or vice versa ... so that concept would correspond to a dished or bowl-shaped coin, but the OP's "coin" having two completely different polygonal shapes on obverse & reverse would be quite a trick even on a Lobachevskian hyperbolic saddle space !!

CCU, have you found the matching coin for the reverse yet?

JZrarities

<< <i>How did they have those coins mounted? >>



I photographed them in a vertical case...not sure how they were mounted.

messydesk

But the coin isn't two-dimensional. It has thickness which can be represented as a series of triangles (or non-rectangular convex quadrilaterals llike my old windows) which must not project the shape of one side to the other, or that would violate the negation of Hilbert's parallel postulate. Therefore the two sides of the coin must be a different shape. Anyone else need a beer right about now?

ColonialCoinUnion

<< <i>But the coin isn't two-dimensional. It has thickness which can be represented as a series of triangles (or non-rectangular convex quadrilaterals llike my old windows) which must not project the shape of one side to the other, or that would violate the negation of Hilbert's parallel postulate. Therefore the two sides of the coin must be a different shape. Anyone else need a beer right about now? >>



Yes.

dorkkarl

<< <i>

<< <i>I never said it was a single coin (didn't cross my mind at the time, and I didn't want to influence the poll) just Real or Not Real. >>



True. Sorry for the 'jerking us around' comment - I thought it was a trick.

As an aside, it is interesting that the Smithsonian example of a Large Planchet Pine Tree Shilling included an obv and rev of this same scarce Noe-2 variety.

The obv coin was a gift of the Norweb family, and is thus one of the few Noe varieties missing from the otherwise comprehensive run of Pine Tree Shilling varieties in Bower's October, 1987 sale of the Norweb Collection. >>

he11, i thought it was a trick question too. no way does a single coin have such variation in clips like that

K S

Russ

<< <i>Looks real, IMHO. >>



I agree. Now that the answer's been posted.

Russ, NCNE