Your thoughts on this shield nickel--genuine or not?

airplanenut

I'm curious as to your thoughts on this nickel. My main concern is with the date. Looking at some other pieces on Heritage, the last 3 digits don't look far off (they all look a bit cartoonish), but the Heritage pieces tend to have a more squared 1. I've checked with a few people I hold in very high regard, and I've gotten a split result. Your thoughts?

MikeInFL

It does look "odd", but I'm not nearly familiar enough with the series to have a stronger opinion.

I miss IGWT.

devious

Speculative, but with consistency to the rest of the 1867 w rays (that I have viewed), I would say questionable authenticity. I'd also base that on the denticles on your posted example. But that's purely my speculation and not because I have any idea what I am talking about regarding shield nickels. :-)

I'm going with counterfeit. The C on CENTS is way off on the reverse also... And I'm sure if I looked, there would likely be other odds and ends that don't compare to other examples of this particular shield nickel. And the rays are all wrong...

291fifth

While I haven't collected Shield Nickels in many years, it does have an odd appearance.

TallGuy

Mushy (lack of Obv. details) + Goofy looking date = Bad

michiganboy

The denticles on reverse to me say counterfeit, they are imcomplete and mushy. I have never seen an authentic sheild nickel have denticles that are at least not fully struck, not counting worn for obviuos reasons.

LindeDad

Might be worth using your daily free look at coin facts to check it against as a few things do look off.

cmerlo1

Fake. Date font is completely wrong, details aren't sharp.

TallGuy

Another tip is the Rays on the reverse. They should be wider and bolder at the top (closest to the rim) and narrow as they get closer to the "5". They should not be 3 equal parallel lines like the ones at the bottom of the coin especially. No question bad!

Walkerguy21D

Definitely odd looking.....mushy leaves but very sharp shield lines, stars and date look a little unnatural too.

COALPORTER

If it is fake, then it could be worth more, so snag it !

tightbudget

It reminds me of those more modern fake pieces coming out of China

JamesMurray

<< <i>Speculative, but with consistency to the rest of the 1867 w rays (that I have viewed), I would say questionable authenticity. I'd also base that on the denticles on your posted example. But that's purely my speculation and not because I have any idea what I am talking about regarding shield nickels. :-)

I'm going with counterfeit. The C on CENTS is way off on the reverse also... And I'm sure if I looked, there would likely be other odds and ends that don't compare to other examples of this particular shield nickel. And the rays are all wrong... >>



Its the denticles im looking at , it's where the modern Chinese fakes fall down.Im with Tightbudget on that point.

Justlooking

No reason why the lines in the shield should be sharp and the leaves that mushy.

seanq

I'm also thinking modern Chinese reproduction, the contemporary counterfeits shown in a couple of recent threads have a much rougher appearance and are easily distinguishable from the real thing.


Sean Reynolds

FredWeinberg

FAKE - the only thing missing
are the Chopsticks.....

BillJones

<< <i>It reminds me of those more modern fake pieces coming out of China >>



That is my thought.

Shield nickels frequently have issues with the way they were struck, but this one generally soft, mussy look to, especially on the high points. The denticles also do no look right. I vote counterfeit.

fishteeth

modern fake, lettering and other details too far off

AUandAG

Fake, also look at the separations between the stars. Not consistent or even.

bob

MrHalfDime

This is certainly not my series (I agree with MikeInFL: I miss IGWT, too), but knowing that date numerals were punched into all working dies using standard punches, it is inconceivable that any working die could end up with such unusual date numerals as seen on this piece. That, combined with the granular appearance of the fields typical of cast counterfeits, makes me believe that this piece is not a genuine Mint product. It is perhaps a bit scary, though, that we should even be having this discussion. The Chinese counterfeits require that we all be extra vigilant.

silverpop

fake

golden

Bad to the bone!

JamesMurray

<< <i>This is certainly not my series (I agree with MikeInFL: I miss IGWT, too), but knowing that date numerals were punched into all working dies using standard punches, it is inconceivable that any working die could end up with such unusual date numerals as seen on this piece. That, combined with the granular appearance of the fields typical of cast counterfeits, makes me believe that this piece is not a genuine Mint product. It is perhaps a bit scary, though, that we should even be having this discussion. The Chinese counterfeits require that we all be extra vigilant. >>



I can assure you there are better fakes out there and the good ones are not cast nor by any means as easy to determine.Id hesitate to say this is cast but the more i look i can see what you mean , especially the shield border detail,it just fades in and out.

MrHalfDime

I recognize that the majority of the modern Chinese counterfeits are not cast, but when looking at this coin I do see a couple of things that resemble some of the cast counterfeit half dimes in my reference collection. On the obverse, just to the left of the left-hand arrow tail feathers, and just below the left-hand leaves, there is a substantial defect in the field. Of course, with just a two-dimensional image we cannot tell if the defect is in relief, or if it is incuse below the surface of the field. If it is in relief, it could be the result of damage to the mold from which the coin was cast. There is a similar defect on the reverse, to the south-west of the ball of the 5. Again, if this is in relief it would strongly suggest a cast counterfeit. Only an in-hand study of the coin can determine this. But these defects, combined with the granular surface of the coin, are reminiscent of the several contemporary cast counterfeit half dimes that I have studied. Probably a moot point, as the experts have all agreed that the coin is bogus. I was merely attempting to determine how it was produced.

howards

This is definitely a fake, and I would be astounded if it were not a modern Chinese product because it has a similar look as other modern Chinese fakes.

What's a little scarier about this one than most is that on most of them the positioning of devices and lettering is so far wrong that it takes but a couple seconds of study to determine it's a fake. This piece is much closer to the genuine article. So you have to study it a little more. There is a mushiness to everything that gave me immediate pause, and the fields look wrong.

With some study, I was able to determine that the positioning of the reverse star above E (CENTS) is far off enough to be clearly wrong, and that absolutely confirms this as fake.

Having said all that, I would like to know where this piece was seen and whether I could obtain one (cheaply, of course). I document these fakes as part of SNV, and this is the first Chinese fake I've seen that even approaches convincing.

Zoins

Interesting piece and discussion.

LanceNewmanOCC

<< <i>FAKE - the only thing missing
are the Chopsticks..... >>



that is odd, that is what i am thinking!

thanks for the images. i'll add them to my ever-growing database of counterfeits

i really like that date, it is comical. we should nickname it the engraved date variety
.

gonzer

Do they normally have the missing right bar in 'T' of 'States'?

ebaybuyer

made in china, the easiest "pick up point" is the shallow relief, looks almost like wear or a lapped die, coupled with the font being wrong as well as the style of the date digits, it could only come from china. not difficult to pick out the fakes when you know what the real ones look like. the dies have all kinds of "abnormalities" looking for those abnormalities will alert you to other fakes, the chinese ones are usually easy to spot because they just change the date (and its usually wrong) this is exactly why i dont agree that the chinese fakes are a big issue, they stick out like sore thumbs once you educate yourself on what to look for.

dragon

jesbroken

The date jumped out at me immediately. Here is a comparison between the WRays and WORays coins.
Jim

Walkerguy21D

What's scary to me is that someone, somewhere is or has probably reworked the die to improve upon the flaws, making detection that much harder. And we are looking at large clear photos here, not a coin in a 2X2 flip at show.
And now seeing that even Shield Nickels are fair game for counterfieting - wow.....

jdimmick

This is an example of those new style fakes coming from china I guess, have seen lots of the key dates with the same finish and look


26-s Buffalo, 13-s ty 2 Buffalo, 77 indian head cents, 09-s vdb lincolns, 14-d lincolns 21-d wlh and several key date silver $ fakes

lordmarcovan

It is weird looking, and I see what you're talkin' about.

I concur that it is probably fake. But a rather scary fake.

CaptHenway

Just saw this thread. Die-struck counterfeit. I would be highly surprised if it did not come from China.
TD

commoncents05

Definitely counterfeit.

-Paul

robkool

Not genuine...

pursuitofliberty

I just saw this thread too, and I am in complete agreement.

This is most assuredly a fake piece, almost surely die struck ... and, unfortunately, more difficult to tell than some.

astrorat

Counterfeit ... no doubt.

howards

<< <i>Do they normally have the missing right bar in 'T' of 'States'? >>



That can happen on genuine coins. In the case of an 1867, it would have to be due to a grease-filled die.

For some 1868 and 1869 and all 1870 and later dates, missing pieces of letters can be due to broken hubs.

ebaybuyer

i dont even collect shield nickels and i can see red flags all over it. to even a casual shield nickel collector im sure this would look like play money. i dont see how this could fool anyone. the only way this would be a threat to anyone is if it was purchased in a very dark alley, i dont know how many of you buy coins in a dark alley setting.... im going to gamble that most of us wouldnt. im also going to gamble that if a person was willing to spend a few hundred bucks or so on a coin like that, he would probably have a loupe with him expecially if he was buying coins in 2x2's now if he didnt own a loop, had no idea what a real shield nickel looked like, and was buying high grades in 2x2's ... in a dark alley...

ebaybuyer

ebaybuyer

coins with reeding are even easier to spot, the chinese usually add the reeding to the struck coin, in some type of knurling machine, this is evident because the reeding disturbs the rim, so obviously it was added after the coin was struck rather than formed in a collar as the mint does, and always compare the reeding of a suspect coin to a known genuine one. the chinese cant get the design correct so why would they even try to get the reed count correct ?

stephunter

Anyone notice the center dot on the reverse? Maybe the intention was to make it appear to be a proof?

DoubleEagle59

Obvious Chinese Fake from the picture.

In-hand, may appear different, but I doubt it.

telephoto1

The date font was all I needed to see. Asian fake.

Rob790

Looking at fields, soft designs and denticles, it looks like a fake.

mozin

<< <i>This is definitely a fake, and I would be astounded if it were not a modern Chinese product because it has a similar look as other modern Chinese fakes.

What's a little scarier about this one than most is that on most of them the positioning of devices and lettering is so far wrong that it takes but a couple seconds of study to determine it's a fake. This piece is much closer to the genuine article. So you have to study it a little more. There is a mushiness to everything that gave me immediate pause, and the fields look wrong.

With some study, I was able to determine that the positioning of the reverse star above E (CENTS) is far off enough to be clearly wrong, and that absolutely confirms this as fake.

Having said all that, I would like to know where this piece was seen and whether I could obtain one (cheaply, of course). I document these fakes as part of SNV, and this is the first Chinese fake I've seen that even approaches convincing. >>




I don't believe everything Howard says, unless it is about Shield Nickels.

Tdec1000

<< <i>Fake. Date font is completely wrong, details aren't sharp. >>



Very fake indeed!

Tdec1000

<< <i>FAKE - the only thing missing
are the Chopsticks..... >>




That was a good one! Im gonna use that sometime!

BillJones

<< <i>

<< <i>FAKE - the only thing missing
are the Chopsticks..... >>




That was a good one! Im gonna use that sometime! >>



Here's another one: "Chinese Junk."