Gold dollar...look like a fake ?

jayPem

I just recieved this today, probably sending it back tomorrow.....
I don't know these, it's a love token I was going to use as a Christmas gift, but it looks and feels all wrong in person.
Anyone have any thoughts ?

thatboyaintright

I am certainly no expert in this series, but I would agree with you that this is a peice of jewelry, not an authentic gold dollar.

CaptHenway

My gut feeling is genuine, just beat up from being in jewelry, but I don't know if I could ever prove it. The crude loop just seems to have a good, vintage feel to it.

Let's see the engraved side.

MikeInFL

Looks real to me too. I''m anything but an expert, but the longacre doubling looks real given the type. I'll wager it's a late 1880s coin.

stealer

<< <i>Looks real to me too. I''m anything but an expert, but the longacre doubling looks real given the type. I'll wager it's a late 1880s coin. >>


What is "longarce" doubling? Just wondering

MikeInFL

It's the "halo" around the lettering. Not really doubling per-se, but my understanding is that it is evidence of the punches used to impress the letters.



You can see it plainly in the picture above...and also on the OP's. That, and note the similarity between the longacre doubling, and in particular, C in AMERICA on each coin.

FWIW, the coin above is an 1889 (and the same as my avatar), but my recollection was several late dates in the series had the same "filled C" look.

comma

I have a few...looks pretty real

jayPem

Here are the sellers pics, with the reverse engraving...perhaps we have an expert around tonight who has maybe seen this doubling, and the filled c in america before ?
I'd love it if it was genuine ! Thanks !

stealer

Thanks MikeinFL!

PerryHall

<< <i>My gut feeling is genuine, just beat up from being in jewelry, but I don't know if I could ever prove it. The crude loop just seems to have a good, vintage feel to it.

Let's see the engraved side. >>



My gut agree's with Tom's gut. Jewelry piece from the late 1800's. Generally they are worth melt value unless the art work is exceptional in which case it's worth a small premium over melt to a love token collector. In this case, the art work is quite well executed. Too bad we'll never know the date or mintmark.

BillJones

The piece has a "sweated" look perhaps because it was heated when the loop was placed on it. This can also result of wearing the piece next to the skin. At any rate, I think that this piece is genuine. I see no reason to doubt it from the obverse, and the reverse, which is a finely executed 19th love token design, looks to be straight from that era. It’s rare to see engraving work like that from the 20th century.

AngryTurtle

I see the reason to question its authenticity, but that issue was addressed by far more knowledgeable posters than I. For me, if i was in the market for something like this the important side would be the engraved one, and authenticity would be secondary to quality of engraving. The quality of engraving look quite good to me.

CaptHenway

That is good vintage engraving. Now 99% sure genuine.
TD

jayPem

Thanks for the replies ! I think that this may have been shaved down and engraved deeper than another one I've got, giving it a much flimsier, light feel....
that and the filled in letter....threw me off.
Here's the other one.

jayPem

<< <i>I see the reason to question its authenticity, but that issue was addressed by far more knowledgeable posters than I. For me, if i was in the market for something like this the important side would be the engraved one, and authenticity would be secondary to quality of engraving. The quality of engraving look quite good to me. >>



I agree that the engraving is the most important part, but if the coins not authentic, then neither is the engaving imo.
And if not authentic, the price should be much, much lower than what a genuine love token fetches...

ambro51

I'm fairly certain the coin is an 1883 proof. The diagnostics for that issue (207 struck) .... While this at first thought may seem odd understand that beginning this year and through the end of the series in 1889 demand be jewelers for proof gold dollars was increasing strongly. With the quality engraving here it is not difficult to see this as a product of a professional. BTW. The diagnostics listed in QDBs gold dollar book for the 1883 proof "obverse die has U , part of the second S in states , all of C and all of the second A filled in".

Gemineye

<< <i>

<< <i>Looks real to me too. I''m anything but an expert, but the longacre doubling looks real given the type. I'll wager it's a late 1880s coin. >>


What is "longarce" doubling? Just wondering >>


Indian head cent lingo...

jayPem

<< <i>I'm fairly certain the coin is an 1883 proof. The diagnostics for that issue (207 struck) .... While this at first thought may seem odd understand that beginning this year and through the end of the series in 1889 demand be jewelers for proof gold dollars was increasing strongly. With the quality engraving here it is not difficult to see this as a product of a professional. BTW. The diagnostics listed in QDBs gold dollar book for the 1883 proof "obverse die has U , part of the second S in states , all of C and all of the second A filled in". >>



Just the person I was hoping would reply to this thread ! I figured that if it was real, there would be some diagnostics that would reveal a likely date...
Thanks Ambro, now I'll just attatch them to some earrings and give them to somebody who could probably couldn't care less if they're genuine or what the date is !!

MikeInFL

<< <i>I'm fairly certain the coin is an 1883 proof. The diagnostics for that issue (207 struck) .... While this at first thought may seem odd understand that beginning this year and through the end of the series in 1889 demand be jewelers for proof gold dollars was increasing strongly. With the quality engraving here it is not difficult to see this as a product of a professional. BTW. The diagnostics listed in QDBs gold dollar book for the 1883 proof "obverse die has U , part of the second S in states , all of C and all of the second A filled in". >>



I would think a proof, even an impaired, engraved proof, would have some reflectivity of the fields. None is apparent in the OPs coin.

Secondly, don't many of the business struck coins have the same "filled in" letters (as in the example I posed)?

Lastly, the U in the OPs coin (along with the 2nd S in STATES and the second A in AMERICA) does not appear to be filled in. The C in AMERICA clearly is, but that's typical on many non-proof issues (like my 1889 business strike).

IMO, this coin is NOT a proof, and I am curious what, precisely, led you to be "fairly certain" it was -- because there is nothing that I see that would lead anyone to even suggest it to be one, and I see a few things (including denticle weakness) that suggest it is not.

Curiously yours....Mike

MikeInFL

For reference, here's a real 1883 proof:

Link to HA

Again, the OPs coin does not appear to share anything in common with this coin. Setting aside the lack of reflectivity in the fields for a moment, the C in AMERICA is not nearly as badly deteriorated in the proof, yet it appears so with the OPs coin.

In my experience, you can't attribute proof gold dollars from QDB's descriptions (as many of the business struck coins suffer from the same lettering shortcomings), and the fact that it was engraved is hardly authoritative -- but maybe you all see something I do not....Mike

ambro51

Who knows.... The C is always a point on these that strikes unusually, probably since it backs up a high point on the wreath. On closer exam of the photos of the OP coin it doesn't resemble the "cameo frost" look of the proof interior letters that QDBS refers to ,though the U seems to show this more clearly. I think the OPs coin has seen a lot of "soft abrasion" over the years and instead of metal removal has rather moved the metal and blurred some features and letter crispness. There seems to be a lot of Beef to the letters and the dentils are strong all around. The strike was strong as the headress and liberty are vivid. So,.. I'll stick with the date and proof , might be right , might be wrong. BTW the proof diagnostics were referenced to the Bass sale