Is this 1834 CBQ counterfeit? Update: It's real. 1834 B-1 and 1833 B-2 Characteristics
doh
Posts: 6,457 ✭✭✭
The eagle looks off to me...
Positive BST transactions with: too many names to list! 36 at last count.
0
Comments
--Severian the Lame
Revised to say when I put the two side by side that this is the Shanghais mint eagle with turning head variety. The shield is also too small.
I'd say is looks legit to me.
You're right Bill, the reverse is spooky, it's a fake.
Ray
The eagle is looking back.
(Sbe gur erpbeq, V guvax gur pbva vf ABG pbhagresrvg. Vg vf na '34 Oebjavat-1, juvpu unf gur yvfgrq qvr punenpgrevfgvpf, qvssrerag sebz zbfg fznyy qvnzrgre ohfg dhnegref, gubhtu fgvyy erny. V whfg jnag gb fubj ubj rnfl vg vf gb thvqr crbcyr va guvf tebhc gb n pbapyhfvba whfg orpnhfr rirelbar ryfr oryvrirf vg.)
The above will be translated when needed.
Edit: Well, no fun today. "ABG pbhagresrvg" in ROT-13 says "NOT counterfeit," BTW.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
The eagle is different than the one normally found in the small diameter capped bust quarter series, because the reverse working die was made from a unique master hub. This reverse die was also used in 1833 to produce the 1833 B-2 die marriage as well.
I have put forth the theory that this master hub was actually the work of Christian Gobrecht and not the then current Chief Engraver William Kneass, while Gobrecht was working for the Mint as a sort of contract laborer before he was officially and permanently employed by the Mint as a "Second" engraver in Sept. 1835, after Kneass was incapacitated by a stroke. (If you have my new book on the series, look on page 361)
This reverse is the one the Redbook calls the "O over F" variety. There are a few problems with this, as the same reverse was used in 1833 and 1834 even though they only list it for 1834. And the entire legend is repunched no just the O & F. After the reverse die was heavily lapped, most of the repunching no longer shows. I also believe that the latest Cherrypickers guide has this listed as "rare", which it is not.
Why this die was not used again in the series is unknown, as it never developed any severe die cracks during striking and should have still been usable.
Here is a picture of the unique reverse used on the 1833 B-2 & 1834 B-1,
along with another unique reverse hub found on the 1834 B-2, B-5 & 1835 B-2 die marriages:
And here is the normal reverse found after 1834…
(Sorry for the different sizes of the pics as I did not have time to resize them)
QN
Go to Early United States Coins - to order the New "Early United States Half Dollar Vol. 1 / 1794-1807" book or the 1st new Bust Quarter book!
<< <i>The coin in question is real...It is an 1834 B-1, the most common die marriage found in 1834.
The eagle is different than the one normally found in the small diameter capped bust quarter series, because the reverse working die was made from a unique master hub. This reverse die was also used in 1833 to produce the 1833 B-2 die marriage as well.
I have put forth the theory that this master hub was actually the work of Christian Gobrecht and not the then current Chief Engraver William Kneass, while Gobrecht was working for the Mint as a sort of contract laborer before he was officially and permanently employed by the Mint as a "Second" engraver in Sept. 1835, after Kneass was incapacitated by a stroke. (If you have my new book on the series, look on page 361)
This reverse is the one the Redbook calls the "O over F" variety. There are a few problems with this, as the same reverse was used in 1833 and 1834 even though they only list it for 1834. And the entire legend is repunched no just the O & F. After the reverse die was heavily lapped, most of the repunching no longer shows. I also believe that the latest Cherrypickers guide has this listed as "rare", which it is not.
Why this die was not used again in the series is unknown, as it never developed any severe die cracks during striking and should have still been usable.
Here is a picture of the unique reverse used on the 1833 B-2 & 1834 B-1,
along with another unique reverse hub found on the 1834 B-2, B-5 & 1835 B-2 die marriages:
And here is the normal reverse found after 1834…
(Sorry for the different sizes of the pics as I did not have time to resize them)
QN >>
US and British coin collector, and creator of The Ultimate Chuck E. Cheese's and Showbiz Pizza Place Token & Ticket Guide
<< <i>The coin in question is real...It is an 1834 B-1, the most common die marriage found in 1834.
The eagle is different than the one normally found in the small diameter capped bust quarter series, because the reverse working die was made from a unique master hub. This reverse die was also used in 1833 to produce the 1833 B-2 die marriage as well.
I have put forth the theory that this master hub was actually the work of Christian Gobrecht and not the then current Chief Engraver William Kneass, while Gobrecht was working for the Mint as a sort of contract laborer before he was officially and permanently employed by the Mint as a "Second" engraver in Sept. 1835, after Kneass was incapacitated by a stroke. (If you have my new book on the series, look on page 361)
This reverse is the one the Redbook calls the "O over F" variety. There are a few problems with this, as the same reverse was used in 1833 and 1834 even though they only list it for 1834. And the entire legend is repunched no just the O & F. After the reverse die was heavily lapped, most of the repunching no longer shows. I also believe that the latest Cherrypickers guide has this listed as "rare", which it is not.
Why this die was not used again in the series is unknown, as it never developed any severe die cracks during striking and should have still been usable.
Here is a picture of the unique reverse used on the 1833 B-2 & 1834 B-1,
along with another unique reverse hub found on the 1834 B-2, B-5 & 1835 B-2 die marriages:
And here is the normal reverse found after 1834…
(Sorry for the different sizes of the pics as I did not have time to resize them)
QN >>
WOW!
Where the heck is the "worship icon?"
You are one of my heros QN!
This hobby seems to be as hard as one of my other hobbys..................GOLF!
Thanks for the lesson QN!
Thank you for the great post quarternut!
"Bongo hurtles along the rain soaked highway of life on underinflated bald retread tires."
~Wayne
<< <i>Thank you QN. I can see from your pics and description that the coin I originally posted is real. I can also see that my eyes weren't tricking me: the eagle really is different on the reverse than on most other issues. I don't own the coin, nor do I plan to purchase it...I saw it on a dealer's website and it just seemed fishy. I learned something today! Thanks again
I knew it was the real deal doh!
NOT!
posted. cool thread.
<< <i>This thread just adds to my belief that one could post just about any coin, ask if it's a counterfeit and get a slew or replies right off the bat that it is indeed fake. Shame on the Chinese for making people so quick to call a counterfeit. >>
While the details are clear now we still don't know if it is a cast copy from this variety?
<< <i>it is a little disappointing to see people call the coin a fake for no reason other than "it doesnt look right" to them. >>
Actually, a coin not looking right is one of the best reasons to call it a fake. It is a much better idea to pass on a coin because it doesn't look right rather than to take a dealer's word that the coin is authentic (most dealers anyway). I would much rather find out a coin that I didn't buy is real instead of finding out that a coin I did buy based on it being sold as real is, in fact, fake.
<< <i>its one thing to pass on a coin that doesnt look right, what im talking about are the people that arent familiar enough with the series calling coins fake. this happens far too often, passing on a coin is one thing, but deeming the coin fake without even being familiar enough with the series to know the difference of what a fake looks like vs a genuine is another. >>
And yet we still don't know for sure if it is a counterfeit or not. Like I mentioned a couple posts ago it could be a copy of that particular variety. You just can't tell from this photo.
<< <i>its one thing to pass on a coin that doesnt look right, what im talking about are the people that arent familiar enough with the series calling coins fake. this happens far too often, passing on a coin is one thing, but deeming the coin fake without even being familiar enough with the series to know the difference of what a fake looks like vs a genuine is another. >>
i have to agree. there was an IHC recently posted that everyone
jumped on that was fake... but in reality it was cracked out of a net
anacs holder and sold on ebay as raw.
most people should hold their tongue unless they can point out why
they think it is fake which will lead to a debate. to say it is fake without
the reasoning behind the guess is doing very little good for the forum.