Chinese or Domestic?

Broadstruck

What do y'all think

PTVETTER

I'm leaning towards not a U.S. product

FredWeinberg

This was on Ebay a month or so ago.

It's a fake, in my opinion.

TwoSides2aCoin

It wouldn't be bad as a novelty piece, but I would not want to pay more than ten bucks for it.

STONE

Chinese

CaptHenway

Does it come with egg roll????

AUandAG

I'm also on the Chinese side. Seems they have recently realized that the error
collectors are a big group.

bob

IrishMikey

The close-up of the date area seems to show a lot of tiny bumps and pimples. These are
a good indicator for a Chinese fake.

Broadstruck

<< <i>This was on Ebay a month or so ago.

It's a fake, in my opinion. >>



Yes and was relisted about a week ago starting at $400.00.

The new listing was in my saved EBay searches I received during the night, but the auction was already dead when I checked it in the morning.

I am however curious if this is a US counterfeit

braddick

I don't believe it is a Chinese counterfeit. Oh, it's a fake to be sure, just not of chinese origin.

CaptHenway

<< <i>I'm also on the Chinese side. Seems they have recently realized that the error
collectors are a big group.

bob >>



Like this one:

link

braddick

All the fakes coming out of China are UNC. This one isn't. I've owned a bunch of the Chinese "error coins" and this Standing Lib has a look not shared by the others.

joebb21

just because its not unc does not prove anything. there are plenty of early and morgan dollars coming from china that are in a g-vf grade.

CaptHenway

FWIW, I saw some fake S.L. quarter errors back when I was with ANACS (till 1984). Those consisted of a genuine normal coin given a false second strike off-center, and a false off-center strike on a genuine silver quarter planchet, both from the same pair of counterfeit dies.

The off center was positioned to show a date (think it was 1928-S, but am not sure after all this time), while the double strike was positioned to hide the date of the second strike. This was important because both the date AND the mint mark of the false die was different than the date AND the mint mark of the genuine host coin.

Would have been harder to prove if the die characteristics did not prove that the same die was used for both of the phony off-center strikes, but they were there.

Anyways, I could not say where this 1917 quarter error was made, but I STRONGLY suspect it was not in a U.S. Mint.

TD

CaptHenway

<< <i>All the fakes coming out of China are UNC. This one isn't. I've owned a bunch of the Chinese "error coins" and this Standing Lib has a look not shared by the others. >>



I have seen recent Chinese fakes that have been heavily abraded and "antiqued."
TD

AUandAG

Made to look AU with chops. Not bad but a fake (PCGS said so, right Capt?)
bob

CaptHenway

<< <i>Made to look AU with chops. Not bad but a fake (PCGS said so, right Capt?)
bob
>>



Actually, they said that they were unable to certify it as genuine. I'm not sure what that means nowadays. Back at ANACS we said something like that on the fakes, and said no decision when we were well and truly stumped as to authenticity.

Can we get a ruling from the Modulator as to what their nomenclature means?

TD