Real or fake?

Wolf359

They just "look wrong", especially in the date font and the reverse on the 1881-S with the long arrow in the middle! Or am I imaging things?

1881-S. Scoll down for photos

1883-O Scoll down for photos

1884-O Scoll down for photos.

Now to top it all off, the seller states he doesn't know coins. So I sent him a nice email. Here is his reply, which sent up a lot of
red flags to me:

These are 100% authentic and were purchased from a jewler on ebay IN the u.s. 5 yrs back who had removed them from the bezels they were in some even have the bezel marks where they were held in place. Look if you got nothing better to do please pick up a book to read or find a hobby but don't you ever bother me again with your B.S. comments pal, sorry I don't eat Tripe so serve it some where else. I'm heading out now for a GREAT New Years Eve bash maybe you should find yourself a life!!

Funny, I don't see any jeweler marks. But it's late and I'm tired. Am I wrong?

AUandAG

1881-s: O in ONE and O in OF are mishapen. Mint mark is a strange one to me.
1883-o: Odd date, especially the 3
1884-o: Looks ok to me but has been damaged by the bezel. Flattened rim
obverse and 4 bezel points of damage on reverse.

Late, I agree. We'll see what others think.

bob

Wolf359

This looks pretty bad I think

CaptHenway

The 1884-O looks like an ex-jewelry piece. Note the prong marks at 1:30, 4:30, 7:30 and 10:30.

The pix of the others are so bad I cannot tell.

TD

BillJones

The pictures are very poor, but the items remind me of the Chinese counterfeits that I saw at last year's FUN show. Why counterfeit an 1881-S dollar in what looks like circulated condition? I can't say they bad for sure, but I would not bet on them.

joecopper

Wolf -- looks fake to me

messydesk

Bad pictures, but I don't like the 81-S and 83-O. Not only is the mintmark sspect on the 83-O, but also the strike on the obverse, with reasonable full detail above the ear and weakness at 7-8 o'clock. Also, the tone of the seller's e-mail says to me, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks." Of course, the bad pictures can play tricks with size and shape of the details, so maybe they're good.

blu62vette

The date on the 1883-O looks way off to me.

segoja

Pics are not good enough to tell.

Why bother a guy like this is you are not 100% sure? These surely won't bring big bucks, at least I hope not.

ksteelheader

<< <i>Pics are not good enough to tell.

Why bother a guy like this is you are not 100% sure? These surely won't bring big bucks, at least I hope not. >>



I tend to agree with this.

BobSav

I agree too

Wolf359

<< <i>Pics are not good enough to tell.

Why bother a guy like this is you are not 100% sure? These surely won't bring big bucks, at least I hope not. >>



But I am sure, if you'd read my 2nd post. Crooks are crooks, minnows become whales after a while.

ksteelheader

<< <i>

<< <i>Pics are not good enough to tell.

Why bother a guy like this is you are not 100% sure? These surely won't bring big bucks, at least I hope not. >>



But I am sure, if you'd read my 2nd post. Crooks are crooks, minnows become whales after a while. >>




Minnows are fish, whales are mammals.

But, I understand what you're saying.

IrishMikey

Even allowing for the blurry photos, all 3 coins look like Chinese counterfeits to me. I am pretty sure that every date/mintmark in the Morgan dollar series has been faked by the Chinese "fake factories" by now, even the common ones. Ask him what they weigh.

garrynot

A little angry, are we?? That guy needs some lessons in customer service, whatever he is selling.

rockdude

And...The biggest red flag is his no return policy.