Anyone want to attribute this Bust Half Dime? **New Pics Added** Mystery solved?? **NEW INFO IN 1ST
 of 4-17-04 004.jpg)
UtahCoin
Posts: 5,365 ✭✭✭✭✭
Check this out. Barndog pointed out this auction for a "Replica" out of China. I copied the picture from that auction and did an overlay with my coin. It matches up almost exactly! Here is the overlay.
I used to be somebody, now I'm just a coin collector.
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
0
Comments
The 3 and 2 in the date don't look right, and the reverse is not listed in the LM book.
Ray
Not hardly.
Fake.
Edit: After reading posts below mine, how can this coin NOT be counterfeit?
To support LordM's European Trip, click here!
" ... the reverse is not listed in the LM book."
I believe it is. I believe that it is the Reverse V, as stated by Barndog.
"very well made [counterfeit]. Not hardly."
If, indeed, it is a cast counterfeit, it is one of the best ones that I have seen. I presently have what is believed to be the largest collection of cast counterfeit Capped Bust half dimes known, and this coin would certainly be the best example I have ever seen ..... if it is determined to be counterfeit.
"obverse 1 1832, Reverse V"
While I agree that the reverse appears to be Reverse V, I do not think the obverse is 1832 Obverse 1. The star/dentil relationships are all wrong, and the date does not appear to be right for this obverse. It looks more like 1832 Obverse 2 to me. Check the star/dentil relationships (UBUU) on this coin, as opposed to LCCU for Obverse 1. Also, look closely at the 8 3 relationship. For Obverse 1 they are upright and aligned, but for Obverse 2 the 3 leans slightly toward the 8, as on this coin.
-Paul
Look at how "thick" the digits in the date are!
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
Make no mistake, it certainly can be a counterfeit; that has yet to be determined. What is needed are accurate weight and specific gravity measurements, which have been offered to the OP. Until then, we can only speculate.
The coin could be genuine, and if so, it would be a new, never-before-seen die marriage, apparently of the 1832 Obverse 2 die paired with the Reverse V, previously known only for the 1834 LM-1. However, this would not explain the close-but-not-precise alignment of the obverse dies as shown by Utahcoin's clever overlays.
If the coin is determined to be a counterfeit, it would be a fabrication of one of the following types:
CAST COUNTERFEIT:
When I first viewed the smaller images posted by the OP, I was troubled that there did not appear to be much porosity in the fields, which is characteristic of cast counterfeits. This is due to the fine sand used in the molds for casting the counterfeits. No matter how fine the sand, it always leaves tell-tale porous surfaces on the cast coins. However, in the enlarged images now posted, we can see some porosity in the fields. Some of the porosity was apparently worn away, as the coin appears to have been cleaned, even polished, perhaps in an attempt to conceal the porous surfaces.
Even if the surfaces do exhibit the characteristic porosity seen on other cast counterfeits, this coin presents yet another dilemma. All cast counterfeits previously seen were made from an original host coin, which was sandwiched in a sand mold, making an impression into which molten metal was poured. How could the counterfeiters make such a sandwich mold using the obverse die of one genuine coin and the reverse die of yet another genuine coin? The minor distortions of placement and size of the numerals and stars can easily be explained by the sand mold process, but not the new die marriage.
DIE STRUCK FROM SPARK EROSION DIES:
Die struck counterfeits are known, but they are rare. The counterfeit dies were made from a genuine coin using the spark erosion process. This process yields actual dies, which can be used to strike coins. The dies often exhibit minor porosity, which can be seen on the surfaces of the coins they strike. While this might seem like a plausible explanation, I would hasten to point out that I have never seen or even heard of any die struck counterfeit Capped Bust half dimes. The only examples of die struck counterfeit half dimes that I have ever seen are of the 1795 LM-10/V4 Flowing Hair marriage. Possible, but not likely.
DIE STRUCK FROM ORIGINAL ART DIES:
There are many counterfeit half dimes known that were made from original art work dies, made by 'artists' attempting to copy the original art work of genuine coins. However, these are usually (always?) Liberty Seated half dimes, and even on the best of these, the art work often leaves much to be desired. Not only does the artist typically take much poetic license with the art work, but often gets even the dates and mints wrong (I have a 'highly suspect' 1874-O half dime - the year after the half dime was discontinued). While this is a possibility in this case, I highly doubt that any freehand artist could do such a precise job of copying the William Kneass design (see Utahcoin's overlays).
So there we have it. The coin could be genuine, presenting a strange new die marriage, or it could be a very good and deceptive counterfeit. Only further, in-hand measurements and study will solve the mystery.
Cleaned and artificially toned, or similar process making it appear genuine.
That's my answer and I'm sticking to it until I die!
Cleaned and artificially toned, or similar process making it appear genuine."
That is definitely another possibility. However, if you have closely studied any of the ubiquitous Chinese counterfeits now cluttering eBay, you will see that the artwork in the dies is not even close to the original. You need not even look all that close. The Chinese counterfeits (at least the ones seen on eBay) would not so closely align with the originals, as seen in Utahcoin's overlays.
That's my answer and I'm sticking to it until I die!
<< <i>"Chinese counterfeit made from Silver.
Cleaned and artificially toned, or similar process making it appear genuine."
That is definitely another possibility. However, if you have closely studied any of the ubiquitous Chinese counterfeits now cluttering eBay, you will see that the artwork in the dies is not even close to the original. You need not even look all that close. The Chinese counterfeits (at least the ones seen on eBay) would not so closely align with the originals, as seen in Utahcoin's overlays.
That's my answer and I'm sticking to it until I die!
I really can't explain it any other way, and it wasn't something already hypothesized.
I'm all for it being a new variety, but I'll play the odds and stick with my idea that it's a counterfeit; the date is just strange!
The only contemporary counterfeits (counterfeits made at the same approximate time as the originals) of which I am aware are the cast counterfeits, which I covered in an above post. Even the very best U. S. Mint technology during the first half of the nineteenth century was a bit crude by world mint standards; the technology used by contemporary counterfeiters was, almost by definition, even more so. This coin, despite its cleaned or polished present state, could hardly be described as crude.
On my scale it weighs 1.2 grams (Mint fresh would be 1.35)
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
Anyone thought it could be a "magician's coin" type? One coin hollowed out on one side (maintaining its edge) and another coin ground down and inserted into the hollowed out side?
Incidentally, the picture of the rim would seem to exclude the possibility of a cast counterfeit, which would exhibit a 'seam' around the edge where the two halves of the mold came together. Too soon to tell, but it certainly appears that way.
What an odd looking coin.
The reed count should determine if it was struck in a collar die that is known to exist for the time period.
A thickness measurement might also be helpful.
"Incidentally, the picture of the rim would seem to exclude the possibility of a cast counterfeit, which would exhibit a 'seam' around the edge where the two halves of the mold came together."
This is visible "most" of the time, however the coin could have had the reeds applied after the casting as well.
It looks to me like the obverse is actually Obverse 1 from 1834 and the 1832 date has been applied. The stars are all correct in relation to each other, although the point / Dentil relationships are slightly off. I would say that this is due to both the casting and perhaps the photos.
Just my 5 cents worth of opinion!
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!
the reeding does not look uniform to me
maybe you should get one of these as well for your testing
eBay fake - can't tell shipped price $2..40 + shipping?
<< <i>Yes, this is very exciting stuff. >>
My thoughts exactly!
<< <i>
<< <i>Yes, this is very exciting stuff. >>
My thoughts exactly! >>
Indeed!
Great thread!
My YouTube Channel
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
Here is what I think we are actually looking at.
Several cast impression are made of one side of a coin (perhaps an obverse) and a cast impression is made of one side of a different coin (perhaps a reverse).
On the face of each of the obverse side molds different dates are engraved so that a run of dates can be made.
These two impressions (obverse & reverse) are then used together to form a complete mold.
After the metal is pored into this mold and allowed to cool, a "coin" is formed. Once this "coin" is freed from the mold, it has the edge reeding applied. This creates a raised rim of metal around the obverse & reverse that is needs to be removed. This can be removed with a file or a small grinding wheel (you can see evidence of this in the picture of the reeded edge posted above).
We are seeing the exact same thing being done with bust half counterfeits. The exact same obverse with different dates combined with the same reverse.
The next evolution of counterfeits is even scarier!
The counterfeiters use transfers from the real coin to make actual coinage dies. These dies are used to make struck examples using a collar die. If they are using the same techniques that a real mint uses, they will become tougher and tougher to detect as counterfeits...
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 will preface my comments with one caveat. Whenever the bad guys create counterfeit coins of a particular series, well intentioned and knowledgeable specialists in that series publish detailed analyses of the counterfeits, complete with diagnostics to properly identify the counterfeits. While this is enormously helpful to collectors, it is also quite instructive to the counterfeiters, who will avoid making the same mistakes on the next round of counterfeits. Each successive batch of counterfeits is of increasingly higher quality, making them harder to identify. I struggled with this ‘Catch-22’ dilemma before posting these findings, but decided that it is better to educate collectors, even if it provides the same information to the counterfeiters.
First, let me say that I concur with Barndog and Quarternut: the coin is a modern cast counterfeit (Chinese?), and of somewhat higher quality than any others that I have seen. I do differ on a couple of the details as presented by Quarternut, but these are minor in nature. I conducted both objective and subjective analyses of the coin, and both would seem to agree that the coin is not of U. S. Mint origin. I present the results of my tests below:
OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS:
COIN MASS (Dry weight, in air):
Subject coin: 1.18 G
Genuine coin (per Mint specification): 1.35 G in Mint State
~1.35 G - 1.33 G in AU*
~1.33 G – 1.30 G in EF*
~1.30 G – 1.28 G in VF*
* Averages taken from a large database of CBHD weights compiled by Mark Smith and myself.
COIN MASS (Weight in water):
Subject coin: 1.055 G
SPECIFIC GRAVITY:
Subject coin: 9.44
Genuine coin: 10.31 (90% silver, 10% copper)
DIAMETER:
Subject coin N/S: 15.455 MM
Subject coin E/W: 15.505 MM
Genuine coin: 15.5 MM
NUMBER OF REEDS:
Subject coin: 109 reeds
Genuine coin: 91, 95, 96, 97, or 98 reeds (96 or 97 if genuine 1832; 96 or 97 if genuine 1834)
SUBJECTIVE (EMPIRICAL) ANALYSIS:
The coin does, upon close inspection, exhibit some of the expected porosity seen on cast counterfeit coins, although to a lesser degree than one might expect. Most of the examples of contemporary cast counterfeit Capped Bust half dimes that I own or have seen have slightly more porous surfaces. There are only a very few of the expected raised (in relief) lines caused by ‘dents’ in the sand molds on this coin. On the obverse, several roughly parallel raised lines can be seen extending from *5 to Miss Liberty’s forehead. Another, slightly larger raised line can be seen from the back of the cap to *9. On the reverse, there is a large raised line from the scroll above P of PLURIBUS to S1.
Perhaps the most significant finding about this particular cast counterfeit which differs appreciably from all other cast counterfeits seen of this series is that it does not match up with any known die marriage. Quarternut speculates that the counterfeiters made a mold from one genuine obverse, and another mold from another genuine reverse, and paired them to make this ‘fantasy’ marriage. I could not make either the obverse or the reverse align with any known ‘real’ dies, although they are quite similar to several. The lesson here for collectors should be that discovering a suspect coin of a ‘new’ or never-before-seen die marriage should raise a significant red flag.
The two most distinguishing characteristics of this coin which positively identify it as a counterfeit are the specific gravity and the edge reeding. Unfortunately, most collectors are unequipped to measure specific gravity (a relatively easy test), and too many collectors completely ignore the ‘third die’, or edge. The reeding on this coin was not imparted by a collar during the coin striking process, as with an original coin, but was likely added after the coin was cast. There does not appear to be even the slightest evidence of a seam on the edge which would have resulted from the two halves of the sand mold. However, the reeding is odd in appearance (in addition to having too many reeds). Normal reeding appears as a pattern of gradual, or gentle hills and valleys, with rounded edges. The collar which produced the normal reeding would have appeared like a spline. The ‘valleys’ in the reeding would have continued fully from the obverse face to the reverse face of the coin in order for the struck coin to have been ejected from the collar. The reeding on this coin exhibits small ‘bridges’ between each reed, at either end (see the edge view of the coin), which would not be present on a genuine coin which was ejected through the collar. Also, the edge reeds on the counterfeit coin are almost completely squared off, as opposed to rounded on a genuine coin. (When looked at from a perpendicular angle, normal reeding would appear like a sine wave function, and these counterfeit reeds look like a square wave function).
As counterfeit coins continue to evolve, and are of greater and higher quality, collectors need to equip themselves with the wherewithal to properly identify them. The necessary tools would include, at a minimum, any and all updated reference material on the series of coins in question, a good stereo microscope, and a triple beam balance scale (in order to conduct specific gravity tests). Please note that this counterfeit coin does not exhibit the obligatory "REPLICA" counterstamp as shown on Barndog's example.
I wanted to add a comment about the date on this counterfeit coin. All of the devices on this coin, with the exception of the date numerals alone, appear to have been part of the original sand mold, and would be consistent on every coin cast from the molds. Each of the devices exhibits the typical relief, with the device appearing in relief, extending up from the fields with a gentle slope. However, the date numerals appear quite different. I have no doubt that the date numerals were also part of the sand mold, but the numerals themselves apparently were added to the molds for the desired date. The date numerals are somewhat larger than normal, and are not placed in the exergue precisely where they would normally appear. The counterfeiters must have had several date numerals which they pressed into the sand molds in order for them to appear in relief on the cast coins. When closely examining the date area of this counterfeit, the field adjacent to the numerals does not gently slope up onto the numerals as would be expected. Indeed, the numerals appear to be undercut, almost as if they were applied to the coin itself, as suggested by Quarternut. I believe that the date numerals were three dimensional in nature, were pressed into the sand mold to create the desired date, then removed, and the coin was cast. If the date numerals were sunk too far into the sand mold, being round in cross-section, the observed undercutting would occur.
If you look closely at the 1832 date on UtahCoin's example, you can see what appears to be the top of a 4 in the field above the 2 in the date, suggesting that a genuine 1832 coin was used to make the original mold.
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
can you tell if it is a cast or stuck from dies that were made from a casting?
I think the chinese will be bigger problems when they get better with their dies and use real coins as models
Just think of all the Omega man gold
now we could see copies of anything, even state quarters
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.