Altered Dates on Morgans

Wolf359

1892-S Looks bad

1895-O Looks bad as well.

Anyone see problems with his other coins? The 42/1 Merc looks wrong, but I'm not sure.

boucharda

The "5" in the 95 looks weird but I think both coins are real. It's hard to tell from the scans what else is going on but he has sold a few better date coins in the past with decent feedback....

Wolf359

Anyone else? Both scream FAKE at me.

coinguy1

They look OK to me. Here is a 92-S for comparison:

AUandAG

The Morgans are real....the dime is another story. It seems to be missing the
die chip on the reverse and therefore would be suspect.

bob

AUandAG

I wrote the seller with my dime "suspect" question asking if it had the
die chip that connected the branch to the torch. It appears that it does
not and thus I got this and he ended the auction:

Hi Bob,

Thank you for your message. I have shown this collection to several dealers and no one mentioned any problems with this coin, however it is better to be safe about such things. I take my reputation very seriously and will not jeopardize it over a questionable coin. I have also tried to photograph the coins with a very nice camera and could not get them to come out with sufficient quality. I decided if I had to choose between surface detail and color the better measure would be details.

Thank you for your time and message,

Wayne

- collectornumis2010