Possibly old news: Deceptive 1796 Silver Dollar Counterfeit

CIVITAS

We had one of these walk into our shop today. It was in a box of junk coins that a guy who "knew nothing about coins" was selling "for a friend." Also present was an 1889-CC counterfeit Morgan dollar. All other coins were just junk or impaired slightly better dates. The situation was suspicious and the coin immediately looked suspicious, but not overtly fake. I had to pull out the books and look it over pretty closely. Obviously the guy wouldn't part with it for the price of a counterfeit, but agreed to let us take some pics. So either I just passed on a discovery specimen of a 1796/5 dollar, or it was bogus.

Details: Counterfeit 1796 Silver Dollar

DorkGirl

That just confirms to me that I will never buy one of those unless it's in plastic, or from someone that I trust.

AUandAG

Great job of detecting! But, now can you tell us the "tells"? What was the weight, diameter? What was
wrong (a lot of us have never seen one in hand)?
thanks for the knowledge,
bob
PS can you post a pic of the 89cc? that I might be able to see the probs!

drwstr123

That one's by me. What a the diagnostics? Thanks, Mike

COALPORTER

<< <i>Great job of detecting! But, now can you tell us the "tells"? What was the weight, diameter? What was
wrong (a lot of us have never seen one in hand)?
thanks for the knowledge,
bob
PS can you post a pic of the 89cc? that I might be able to see the probs! >>



Click on his link and read , it will tell you.

CIVITAS

I can't be sure of all the diagnostics at the moment. Anything I did notice is listed on that page, be sure to scroll down to see the list of evidence I could come up with.

I haven't compared to enough genuine specimens yet, but one thing I've noticed is many of the bogus ones have that small spike/defect coming out of star 9, but the genuine 1795 B14s that I've looked at, don't have it. Of course I'm not familiar with all of the die stages of B14, so someone more advanced than I could possibly comment if that can be found on genuine coins. Looking through 40+ specimens at Heritage auction archives didn't yield one with the defect that I could see.

CaptHenway

<< <i>We had one of these walk into our shop today. It was in a box of junk coins that a guy who "knew nothing about coins" was selling "for a friend." Also present was an 1889-CC counterfeit Morgan dollar. All other coins were just junk or impaired slightly better dates. The situation was suspicious and the coin immediately looked suspicious, but not overtly fake. I had to pull out the books and look it over pretty closely. Obviously the guy wouldn't part with it for the price of a counterfeit, but agreed to let us take some pics. So either I just passed on a discovery specimen of a 1796/5 dollar, or it was bogus.

Details: Counterfeit 1796 Silver Dollar >>



Remember the fake 1795 that was in a fake NGC slab that they put up on their website last January? This is from that manufacturer. I did an article on them in COINage.
That piece first walked into our store (Harlan J. Berk's in Chicago) around the end of last December. The owner, one of our customers, had bought it from China. We sent it to NGC for them to study. The customer later bought in a 1796 and a 1797 from the same source. All show the same die characteristics, which were lifted from a genuine 1795.
Using some technique I am not familiar with, they copied the 9 off of the 1795 and used it, upside down, to create a 1796 die. They then copied the 7 to make a different, 1797 die.
TD

CIVITAS

Hi Tom,

Do you have any additional info or pictures of those 1795 and 1797 fakes you saw. A link to your article perhaps? There are some who think this piece might be genuine. I'm highly skeptical, but only have this one example. I'd like to see if those other fakes have the same spike/crack in star 9.

CaptHenway

<< <i>Hi Tom,

Do you have any additional info or pictures of those 1795 and 1797 fakes you saw. A link to your article perhaps? There are some who think this piece might be genuine. I'm highly skeptical, but only have this one example. I'd like to see if those other fakes have the same spike/crack in star 9. >>



As I recall, they do.
How can there be any question that this is fake? These unique die characteristics (placement of letters, stars & etc.) are known for a genuine 1795. They cannot appear on a different date unless the die was overdated after use.
It is a counterfeit.
TD

CIVITAS

<< <i>

<< <i>Hi Tom,

Do you have any additional info or pictures of those 1795 and 1797 fakes you saw. A link to your article perhaps? There are some who think this piece might be genuine. I'm highly skeptical, but only have this one example. I'd like to see if those other fakes have the same spike/crack in star 9. >>



As I recall, they do.
How can there be any question that this is fake? These unique die characteristics (placement of letters, stars & etc.) are known for a genuine 1795. They cannot appear on a different date unless the die was overdated after use.
It is a counterfeit.
TD >>



I agree. I was just hoping to have a few more points of information to convince the other parties.

I really wish someone could identify the process that they used on these, because the ability to copy the minor details, including the raised dot in the 7 and the small die cracks emanating from the stars is downright frightening.

CoinRaritiesOnline

From the images, it does appear to be fairly deceptive. Excellent work, Civitas.