@Rampage said: "...and they will not be holdered by PCGS, NGC, and ANACS."
Fortunately for collectors, ICG grades these fakes and puts them in their "Yellow Label" Counterfeit holder for educational purposes only. The "micro O" fakes fooled EVERYONE when they were included in in the silver dollar books decades ago.
The discovery of the "Large O" counterfeits was done recently by die linkage. Apparently this is still going on.
@messydesk said: "This family of counterfeits, comprising something like 15 die pairs, was made no later than the early 1940s. Coins that would grade AU58 or higher are extremely rare, as the freshly minted coins may have had to be tumbled with other circulating coins to wear them down a bit and make them pass in circulation."
Actually, an article appearing in the NY Times a little after the turn of the century reported the suspicious "Small O" dollars that were appearing at banks in San Francisco and other locations. These fakes were die struck and were around decades before 1940!
@CascadeChris said: "...I've fallen much farther behind due to the discovery of new privately-made die pairs."
Today the bulk of these counterfeits are in large lots of junk dollars destined for the refinery or sold to silver hoarders.
Cascade has "But I do have this (finest known micro-o) 1896-o."
To the best of my knowledge this is true. The "Discovery Coin," LOL - one in similar BU condition was slabbed in a PCI "Signature Series" slab around 1994 even after Mike Fazzari , a professional authenticator, sent a note along with the coin to the consultant stating that the coin was a counterfeit!
Going to dinner, more later
PS As PRIZ430 posted above: "Looked like it had a sand blasted finish....I thought it looked fake." This was exactly what caught Fazzari's eye. Remember, years before, ANACS had published a grainy 1996-P fake with a similar surface. The F to VF fakes were a different story. It is little wonder these went undetected for so long. Ther is a thread on one of the major forms about these fakes and the newspaper article. I read the article written by the Times on their web sight .
I suggest that they are not being made anymore. If someone had not resurrected an original dies and struck the BU coins at a time when any professional authenticator would consider them to be crude fakes (Fazzari's words), IMO it would have taken much longer to reach the level of research on these coins that we are at today.
Actually, an article appearing in the NY Times a little after the turn of the century reported the suspicious "Small O" dollars that were appearing at banks in San Francisco and other locations. These fakes were die struck and were around decades before 1940!
PS As PRIZ430 posted above: "Looked like it had a sand blasted finish....I thought it looked fake." This was exactly what caught Fazzari's eye. Remember, years before, ANACS had published a grainy 1996-P fake with a similar surface. The F to VF fakes were a different story. It is little wonder these went undetected for so long. Ther is a thread on one of the major forms about these fakes and the newspaper article. I read the article written by the Times on their web sight .
Can you please send me a link to that NYT article?
And without having read the article, I am wondering if perhaps they were referring to the genuine 1899-o dollars that were in circulation with a smaller than normal mint mark. Somebody may have noted it and jumped to a wrong conclusion.
There was a story in the papers a year or two ago about some kid in Texas or Oklahoma whose grandmother gave him a $2 red seal note. The kid spent it at the high school cafeteria, and the cafeteria lady called the police! Several years ago there was a story about a guy who deposited some Ike dollars at a bank and the bank called the police because they knew that dollar coins were not that big!
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I don't think I printed it. I commented on a thread about these coins where another researcher such as yourself posted that info (I never heard of it before) somewhere so give me some time to search all my former posts on CT. I'd be interested to read about it again. Hey, I'm having a flashback. In my post I quoted what I read in the Times link.
@CaptHenway said: @Dan Carr...We may have discussed this before, but have you obtained any significant portion of your contemporary fakes from any one region? I know that coins in circulation can travel anywhere, but when I did my article on these I used the collection of a dealer I know who travels to buy a lot, and he says that the majority of the 30 or so he has pulled out of bulk lots have come from the Northeast.
I have not noticed any region-specific pattern. I think I remember some talk that the high-grade (UNC) 1901-O VAM-60 pictured at VAMworld came from Idaho.
If a mini horde of higher grade piece were to surface, THAT would be a good indicator of the region of origin.
Single coins, not so much.
Found it on coin talk forum: I'll copy more of what I posted there:
"A little more history on these fakes. The name of the authenticator (already gave his name above) and Morgan dollar expert is withheld:
Decades ago counterfeit 1896-P Morgan's were detected at INSAB. Later, the ANACS authenticators also detected these and published an article in the Numismatist. The column is also in the Counterfeit Detection Reprint. The surface of these coins was microscopically granular and the relief was mushy. All coins seen were AU-UNC.
The first 1896 "Micro-O" counterfeit detected at a TPGS was sent to PCI in TN. The coin was Uncirculated. Microscopically, it was just as the 96-P so the same authenticator who detected the 1896-P's years earlier called the coin counterfeit! Nevertheless, the coin was sent to a Morgan dollar expert who disagreed. The coin went out of PCI as genuine in a "Signature" slab from that "expert."
When the authenticator left PCI to join another service, he was able to convince NGC to stop certifying the "Micro O" counterfeits dated 1896, 1899, and 1902. Several years later, the other TPGS followed. There has been extensive research on the die marriages and other dates have turned up, several with large "O" reverses."
@Insider2 said:
I don't think I printed it. I commented on a thread about these coins where another researcher such as yourself posted that info (I never heard of it before) somewhere so give me some time to search all my former posts on CT. I'd be interested to read about it again. Hey, I'm having a flashback. In my post I quoted what I read in the Times link.
Maybe it was this article, which seems curious. Maybe they got the date wrong in the article. Or perhaps these are not the VAM-listed they are writing about ?:
The above was from the CT thread "Contemporary Counterfeits." Nothing more there. I've been looking at my pasts posts on CT - no luck so far. Perhaps it is on this site. Anyway, I'll find it. Off to watch NAKED...and Afraid. Ah off to watch 60 min. NOT
@Insider2 said:
I don't think I printed it. I commented on a thread about these coins where another researcher such as yourself posted that info (I never heard of it before) somewhere so give me some time to search all my former posts on CT. I'd be interested to read about it again. Hey, I'm having a flashback. In my post I quoted what I read in the Times link.
Maybe it was this article, which seems curious. Maybe they got the date wrong in the article. Or perhaps these are not the VAM-listed they are writing about ?:
I doubt they got the date wrong. Morgan dollar counterfeiting at this time was HUGELY popular. I have several accounts which state 100,000's to millions of counterfeits in circulation at a time. While still a remarkably high amount of counterfeits, this article is just one of many similar accounts at the time.
I own a couple of hand-cut, die struck 90-95% silver (per XRF analysis) 1888-O counterfeit Morgans with Micro Os that are not listed on the VAM World site. These belong to a family of counterfeit Morgans which also include, at a minimum, 1889-O, 1890-O, 1892-O and 1899-O; other dates are likely to exist. These counterfeits are superb. The telltale distinctions between these and real coins is that the dates are larger than normal, lettering is thinner, and part of the wing detail is slightly different. If I had photo's of these I would be happy to share. And no, these are not your modern Chinese counterfeit types.
There are many 'Micro O' Morgan dollars that are authentic - not all Micro O Morgans are counterfeit.
Get with the program. We're discussing micro O counterfeits.
Cool down insider2. I would read the last few posts if I were you, to gain some context to the assistance I was providing thebigeng, informing this forum member that not all Micro Os are counterfeit!
@Insider2 said:
I don't think I printed it. I commented on a thread about these coins where another researcher such as yourself posted that info (I never heard of it before) somewhere so give me some time to search all my former posts on CT. I'd be interested to read about it again. Hey, I'm having a flashback. In my post I quoted what I read in the Times link.
Maybe it was this article, which seems curious. Maybe they got the date wrong in the article. Or perhaps these are not the VAM-listed they are writing about ?:
I doubt they got the date wrong. Morgan dollar counterfeiting at this time was HUGELY popular. I have several accounts which state 100,000's to millions of counterfeits in circulation at a time. While still a remarkably high amount of counterfeits, this article is just one of many similar accounts at the time.
I own a couple of hand-cut, die struck 90-95% silver (per XRF analysis) 1888-O counterfeit Morgans with Micro Os that are not listed on the VAM World site. These belong to a family of counterfeit Morgans which also include, at a minimum, 1889-O, 1890-O, 1892-O and 1899-O; other dates are likely to exist. These counterfeits are superb. The telltale distinctions between these and real coins is that the dates are larger than normal, lettering is thinner, and part of the wing detail is slightly different. If I had photo's of these I would be happy to share. And no, these are not your modern Chinese counterfeit types.
Fascinating! I am not familiar with this family. Would love to see some pictures.
I doubt that the NYT article refers to the main family we were talking about if only because most of the dates in it had not yet been struck as genuine coins.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@Insider2 said:
I don't think I printed it. I commented on a thread about these coins where another researcher such as yourself posted that info (I never heard of it before) somewhere so give me some time to search all my former posts on CT. I'd be interested to read about it again. Hey, I'm having a flashback. In my post I quoted what I read in the Times link.
Maybe it was this article, which seems curious. Maybe they got the date wrong in the article. Or perhaps these are not the VAM-listed they are writing about ?:
I doubt they got the date wrong. Morgan dollar counterfeiting at this time was HUGELY popular. I have several accounts which state 100,000's to millions of counterfeits in circulation at a time. While still a remarkably high amount of counterfeits, this article is just one of many similar accounts at the time.
I own a couple of hand-cut, die struck 90-95% silver (per XRF analysis) 1888-O counterfeit Morgans with Micro Os that are not listed on the VAM World site. These belong to a family of counterfeit Morgans which also include, at a minimum, 1889-O, 1890-O, 1892-O and 1899-O; other dates are likely to exist. These counterfeits are superb. The telltale distinctions between these and real coins is that the dates are larger than normal, lettering is thinner, and part of the wing detail is slightly different. If I had photo's of these I would be happy to share. And no, these are not your modern Chinese counterfeit types.
I have never seen any of these and this is the first that I have heard of them.
If these 1888-O counterfeits were plentiful in Denver as the article stated, I certainly would have seen one in my many coin shop and coin show visits in Denver over the last 40 years. I am still skeptical as to the accuracy of that article. I definitely want to see pictures before I will change my mind on that.
I have a vintage counterfeit 1901-O from somewhat-crude hand-cut molds. It has about the right amount of silver in it:
I flipped through the book 'Comprehensive Catalog and Encyclopedia of Morgan and Peace Dollars' by Leroy Van Allen and A. George Mallis. Page 446 and 447 shows the 1888-O and 1890-O varieties I discuss above (and might be noted in the 1898 newspaper article). This book is not comprehensive on the counterfeits, but focuses on identifying the different methods of counterfeiting; the Micro O's which started this thread are not listed in this book. As such, this book only shows a couple of the known counterfeits from this family.
I would note that by ~1900 transportation was super easy. As such, smart counterfeiters were shipping and distributing their counterfeits, through 'shovers' (middle-men), far from the actual operation. As such, the counterfeit operation making these 1888-O (etc) dated counterfeits was probably based close to New Orleans, but distributed their counterfeits far away; the West was a popular place to distribute counterfeit Morgans at this time (at least in the 1880s and 1890s).
I flipped through the book 'Comprehensive Catalog and Encyclopedia of Morgan and Peace Dollars' by Leroy Van Allen and A. George Mallis. Page 446 and 447 shows the 1888-O and 1890-O varieties I discuss above (and might be noted in the 1898 newspaper article). This book is not comprehensive on the counterfeits, but focuses on identifying the different methods of counterfeiting; the Micro O's which started this thread are not listed in this book. As such, this book only shows a couple of the known counterfeits from this family.
I would note that by ~1900 transportation was super easy. As such, smart counterfeiters were shipping and distributing their counterfeits, through 'shovers' (middle-men), far from the actual operation. As such, the counterfeit operation making these 1888-O (etc) dated counterfeits was probably based close to New Orleans, but distributed their counterfeits far away; the West was a popular place to distribute counterfeit Morgans at this time (at least in the 1880s and 1890s).
Ok, I did find those pictures in my book (fourth edition). Thanks for the tip.
They have similarities in engraving style to my 1901-O pictured above. So they might all be from the same source.
The 1898 New York Times article mentioned that the fakes were difficult to spot, even for government officials. These copies from hand-cut dies are rather easy to identify. So it still seems that something is amiss with the facts in that article.
But regardless, these hand-cut counterfeits (1888-O, 1890-O, 1901-O) will probably never be assigned VAM numbers because they are not part of the micro-o "family" that has a legacy of VAM listing.
Also, the VAM-listed privately-made coins are die-struck only. My 1901-O pictured above is cast, not die struck. I suspect the same is true for the 1888-O and 1890-O.
@dcarr said:
But regardless, these hand-cut counterfeits (1888-O, 1890-O, 1901-O) will probably never be assigned VAM numbers because they are not part of the micro-o "family" that has a legacy of VAM listing.
Too bad. If they will not be assigned VAM numbers, is there another way to catalog them?
I flipped through the book 'Comprehensive Catalog and Encyclopedia of Morgan and Peace Dollars' by Leroy Van Allen and A. George Mallis. Page 446 and 447 shows the 1888-O and 1890-O varieties I discuss above (and might be noted in the 1898 newspaper article). This book is not comprehensive on the counterfeits, but focuses on identifying the different methods of counterfeiting; the Micro O's which started this thread are not listed in this book. As such, this book only shows a couple of the known counterfeits from this family.
I would note that by ~1900 transportation was super easy. As such, smart counterfeiters were shipping and distributing their counterfeits, through 'shovers' (middle-men), far from the actual operation. As such, the counterfeit operation making these 1888-O (etc) dated counterfeits was probably based close to New Orleans, but distributed their counterfeits far away; the West was a popular place to distribute counterfeit Morgans at this time (at least in the 1880s and 1890s).
Ok, I did find those pictures in my book (fourth edition). Thanks for the tip.
They have similarities in engraving style to my 1901-O pictured above. So they might all be from the same source.
The 1898 New York Times article mentioned that the fakes were difficult to spot, even for government officials. These copies from hand-cut dies are rather easy to identify. So it still seems that something is amiss with the facts in that article.
But regardless, these hand-cut counterfeits (1888-O, 1890-O, 1901-O) will probably never be assigned VAM numbers because they are not part of the micro-o "family" that has a legacy of VAM listing.
Also, the VAM-listed privately-made coins are die-struck only. My 1901-O pictured above is cast, not die struck. I suspect the same is true for the 1888-O and 1890-O.
Dan,
Your 1901-O is definitely not part of the 1888-O, 1889-O, 1890-O, 1892-O, 1899-O family. Different eagle type, and your example has smaller date punches. My 1888-O, 1889-O, 1890-O, 1892-O, 1899-O pieces are all die struck, sterling silver (92.5% silver, 7.5% copper; no other trace elements - per XRF analysis). I have a highly preliminary hypothesis that the Micro O counterfeit VAMs and these 1888-O, 1889-O, 1890-O, 1892-O, 1899-O pieces were made by the same counterfeiter/operation, for the following reasons:
1) 1888-O, 1889-O, 1890-O, 1892-O, 1899-O, and the Micro O VAMs are all New Orleans MM coins.
2) They all appear to be made of sterling silver without additional trace elements (per my XRF analysis of approximately 20 different varieties)
3) 1888-O, 1889-O, 1890-O, 1892-O, 1899-O may have been made first; nearly all of these that I own are AU/Unc, only 1 example is worn down to VG grade. These are generally dated earlier than the VAM Micro Os, exception being the 1893-O, 1894-O, and 1896-O micro O VAMs which are die linked to later date pieces, such as 1900-O, 1901-O, and 1902-O. These were clearly not in a tumbler or artificially worn like the VAM Micro Os. It could also be that a hoard of these was found once upon a time and thus why 90% of these that I've seen are all high grade, and many others exist in worn condition. The fact that these were made and distributed as high grade may have made them stick out more, and possibly be noticed more easily as 'not quite right' counterfeits. Overall, these varieties are pretty high quality, but as 'experts of Morgan dollars' we can easily spot the flaws - I doubt the lay-person in 1898 would quickly and easily pick out the very minor defects on these with their naked eye, unless they really had time to study them in good light.
4) The VAM micro O's may have been made after the 1888-O, 1889-O, 1890-O, 1892-O, 1899-O varieties. The counterfeiters may have learned from mistakes that were caused by these high grade examples and subsequently found ways to modify their designs/hubs, and artificially wear the coins down to make them less noticeable.
Again, this is just a working hypothesis at the moment. I will need to do A LOT more historical documentation searches before I can strengthen or dismiss this hypothesis.
But comparatively speaking, I have not seen many other hand-cut, die-struck counterfeit Morgan dollar varieties between these two family groups. Most other struck pieces are from transfer dies using debased silver planchets which look quasi-brassy (per XRF analysis).
A quick search found the following newspaper article from the Dec. 1, 1898 Brooklyn Daily Eagle showing 1888 to 1892-dated counterfeit dollars in circulation. It doesn't say 'O' mint pieces, but I'm fairly certain that's what this newspaper is referencing.
@Koinicker said: "I flipped through the book 'Comprehensive Catalog and Encyclopedia of Morgan and Peace Dollars' by Leroy Van Allen and A. George Mallis. Page 446 and 447 shows the 1888-O and 1890-O varieties I discuss above (and might be noted in the 1898 newspaper article). This book is not comprehensive on the counterfeits, but focuses on identifying the different methods of counterfeiting; the Micro O's which started this thread are not listed in this book. As such, this book only shows a couple of the known counterfeits from this family."
Actually, the very crude dollars pictured in Van Allen Mallis would not fool a drunken, blind, bank teller in the 1890's. They are not deceptive at all and are NOT the counterfeits described in the turn of the century articles.
Furthermore, the "micro-O" fakes are listed. Back then, they were called "Small O's." For example, the 1896-O VAM-4 "Small O" listed as R-6 is one of the "micro O" counterfeits. I'll let you look up the other "Small O" fakes listed along with the "Small O " genuine VAMS.
@Zoins said: "Too bad. If they will not be assigned VAM numbers, is there another way to catalog them?"
Yes, one day someone will write a book on crude fakes counterfeits as the Bust Half dollar folks have.
It seems the world is topsy-turvy. In the 1970's when a coin was determined to be counterfeit it lost its luster...LOL. That should have happened with the micro-O's They are counterfeits. However, lots of folks, including the TPGS's had $$$$ tied up in them so they remained "market acceptable." Lots of folks (including me) collect deceptive fakes. That is only one reason these counterfeits have held their value and even increased. As I wrote before, ICG even grades them!
@Insider2 said: @Koinicker said: "I flipped through the book 'Comprehensive Catalog and Encyclopedia of Morgan and Peace Dollars' by Leroy Van Allen and A. George Mallis. Page 446 and 447 shows the 1888-O and 1890-O varieties I discuss above (and might be noted in the 1898 newspaper article). This book is not comprehensive on the counterfeits, but focuses on identifying the different methods of counterfeiting; the Micro O's which started this thread are not listed in this book. As such, this book only shows a couple of the known counterfeits from this family."
Actually, the very crude dollars pictured in Van Allen Mallis would not fool a drunken, blind, bank teller in the 1890's. They are not deceptive at all and are NOT the counterfeits described in the turn of the century articles.
Furthermore, the "micro-O" fakes are listed. Back then, they were called "Small O's." For example, the 1896-O VAM-4 "Small O" listed as R-6 is one of the "micro O" counterfeits. I'll let you look up the other "Small O" fakes listed along with the "Small O " genuine VAMS.
Thanks for the update on the 'Small O' which are now 'Micro O'. I am not a Morgan dollar collector, so I appreciate this update.
I'd like to see a 'drunken, blind, bank teller' from the 1890's try to differentiate the 1888-O and 1890-O Morgan counterfeits from real ones. I digress....
Regarding the 1888-O, 1890-O, 1892-O, etc. Morgans, I described above, I'm finding stronger and stronger evidence to support that they were made between 1897-1900 based on historical accounts and surviving examples. Further, the article DCarr found further supports that assessment. It seems they were initially distributed at the beginning of 1898, and continued to be released into circulation for at least 1-2 more years as the similar accounts consistently mention these exact same dates with O mintmarks. These counterfeits were popping up in large quantities in Denver, Mississippi, and the northeast states (NY, PA) within about a 6 month period. These accounts are far more than just mere coincidence. Counterfeiters striking coins of this silver fineness and quality would be few and far between, and would require similar skills and equipment as the U.S. Mint and its employees. This was at a time when nearly all other counterfeiters were either casting their Morgan counterfeits, or striking them from softer metals/alloys. And regarding quality, given that so many counterfeit Morgans at this time were made from cast tin/lead alloys, or brass-type alloys, these counterfeits stand out as exceptionally better than those cast types. As such, you can't necessarily compare the authentic pieces to these and compare quality, but rather compare the other cast counterfeits to these far superior counterfeits, and thats when you get the accounts of their high quality - die workmanship, weight, size, ring, etc. I'm still searching to see if I can find any arrest records which tie these pieces to specific people and a location. Th
I've even found an article describing operations in Mexico making sterling silver counterfeit Morgans without the 'M' initials at the bottom of the counterfeits. I happen to own an 1891 counterfeit Morgan which is the only example in my collection without the M initials. I can't make the connection that this is one of those Mexican-made counterfeits, but it's certainly a possibility given that other diagnostics are similar; if this article described specifically 1891-dated pieces being made there could be a strong case of correlation, but right now I'm too far away.
I flipped through the book 'Comprehensive Catalog and Encyclopedia of Morgan and Peace Dollars' by Leroy Van Allen and A. George Mallis. Page 446 and 447 shows the 1888-O and 1890-O varieties I discuss above (and might be noted in the 1898 newspaper article). This book is not comprehensive on the counterfeits, but focuses on identifying the different methods of counterfeiting; the Micro O's which started this thread are not listed in this book. As such, this book only shows a couple of the known counterfeits from this family.
I would note that by ~1900 transportation was super easy. As such, smart counterfeiters were shipping and distributing their counterfeits, through 'shovers' (middle-men), far from the actual operation. As such, the counterfeit operation making these 1888-O (etc) dated counterfeits was probably based close to New Orleans, but distributed their counterfeits far away; the West was a popular place to distribute counterfeit Morgans at this time (at least in the 1880s and 1890s).
Ok, I did find those pictures in my book (fourth edition). Thanks for the tip.
They have similarities in engraving style to my 1901-O pictured above. So they might all be from the same source.
The 1898 New York Times article mentioned that the fakes were difficult to spot, even for government officials. These copies from hand-cut dies are rather easy to identify. So it still seems that something is amiss with the facts in that article.
But regardless, these hand-cut counterfeits (1888-O, 1890-O, 1901-O) will probably never be assigned VAM numbers because they are not part of the micro-o "family" that has a legacy of VAM listing.
Also, the VAM-listed privately-made coins are die-struck only. My 1901-O pictured above is cast, not die struck. I suspect the same is true for the 1888-O and 1890-O.
Dan,
Your 1901-O is definitely not part of the 1888-O, 1889-O, 1890-O, 1892-O, 1899-O family. Different eagle type, and your example has smaller date punches. My 1888-O, 1889-O, 1890-O, 1892-O, 1899-O pieces are all die struck, sterling silver (92.5% silver, 7.5% copper; no other trace elements - per XRF analysis). I have a highly preliminary hypothesis that the Micro O counterfeit VAMs and these 1888-O, 1889-O, 1890-O, 1892-O, 1899-O pieces were made by the same counterfeiter/operation, for the following reasons:
1) 1888-O, 1889-O, 1890-O, 1892-O, 1899-O, and the Micro O VAMs are all New Orleans MM coins.
2) They all appear to be made of sterling silver without additional trace elements (per my XRF analysis of approximately 20 different varieties)
3) 1888-O, 1889-O, 1890-O, 1892-O, 1899-O may have been made first; nearly all of these that I own are AU/Unc, only 1 example is worn down to VG grade. These are generally dated earlier than the VAM Micro Os, exception being the 1893-O, 1894-O, and 1896-O micro O VAMs which are die linked to later date pieces, such as 1900-O, 1901-O, and 1902-O. These were clearly not in a tumbler or artificially worn like the VAM Micro Os. It could also be that a hoard of these was found once upon a time and thus why 90% of these that I've seen are all high grade, and many others exist in worn condition. The fact that these were made and distributed as high grade may have made them stick out more, and possibly be noticed more easily as 'not quite right' counterfeits. Overall, these varieties are pretty high quality, but as 'experts of Morgan dollars' we can easily spot the flaws - I doubt the lay-person in 1898 would quickly and easily pick out the very minor defects on these with their naked eye, unless they really had time to study them in good light.
4) The VAM micro O's may have been made after the 1888-O, 1889-O, 1890-O, 1892-O, 1899-O varieties. The counterfeiters may have learned from mistakes that were caused by these high grade examples and subsequently found ways to modify their designs/hubs, and artificially wear the coins down to make them less noticeable.
Again, this is just a working hypothesis at the moment. I will need to do A LOT more historical documentation searches before I can strengthen or dismiss this hypothesis.
But comparatively speaking, I have not seen many other hand-cut, die-struck counterfeit Morgan dollar varieties between these two family groups. Most other struck pieces are from transfer dies using debased silver planchets which look quasi-brassy (per XRF analysis).
I think we both agree that the 1888-O and 1890-O counterfeits pictured in the VAM book, as well as my 1901-O pictured earlier, are all from hand-cut molds/dies. But I disagree with your reasoning as to why you think the 1901-O is not associated with the other two. Of course the "eagle type" is going to be different - these are hand-cut pieces we are talking about. And there were no "punches" used - the date digits were also hand-engraved like the rest of it. So those digits will vary in size and style from die to die, even if made by the same person.
The hand-cut family and the micro-o family have significantly different production techniques. I doubt that the same entity produced both, although it is possible.
I strongly suspect they are from different makers. The quality of the "Micro o" and related family fakes are so good I cannot see them making the hand cut ones.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Here's a picture of the first counterfeit Portrait counterfeit that I got from a self-confessed counterfeiter in 1960-2 who said he made it in Massachusetts the 1920s. The coin has been proven to have too little gold as a contaminant (to have been made in 1805) by two different XRF laboratories and this coin is the basis for my belief that full weight silver counterfeits were produced for the China trade as late as 1930.
A recent test run at RTI International has returned a preliminary signature match with an example of the 1896-O micro O Morgan dollar. I am resubmitting both coins to RTI next week for XRF re-testing with a brand new state of the art XRF testing machine which will do far finer analysis of the trace contamination (down to 1 ppm for 72 elements) in the hopes of proving that the source of both coins is identical.
@CaptHenway said:
I strongly suspect they are from different makers. The quality of the "Micro o" and related family fakes are so good I cannot see them making the hand cut ones.
Perhaps the hand-cut's were their first attempt then they refined their method. Either way it's intriguing.
I think we both agree that the 1888-O and 1890-O counterfeits pictured in the VAM book, as well as my 1901-O pictured earlier, are all from hand-cut molds/dies. But I disagree with your reasoning as to why you think the 1901-O is not associated with the other two. Of course the "eagle type" is going to be different - these are hand-cut pieces we are talking about. And there were no "punches" used - the date digits were also hand-engraved like the rest of it. So those digits will vary in size and style from die to die, even if made by the same person.
The hand-cut family and the micro-o family have significantly different production techniques. I doubt that the same entity produced both, although it is possible.
Punches and probably hubs were definitely used on the dates and lettering of the 1888-O and 1890-O family counterfeit pieces. I can say with 100% certainty that the two 1888-O's I own have the same punch defect on the bottom loop of the three 8's in the date; this consistency would only occur from punches, and not hand-engraving. (Hand-engraved numbers and letters are nearly always FAR more crude and less consistent in their workmanship into the die (especially in terms of depth and width of the engraving)). Further, the same letter shapes and sizes show up on a couple of the dates, further testifying to punches being used. But I will say multiple letter and number punch types were used on this family. Further, on the 1890-O example I own, which is probably the same variety shown on page 446, shows a repunched 9 in the date (especially on the lower-left knob). I don't often see re-engraving on hand-cut die counterfeits, but quite often when punches were used. Certainly if this counterfeiter used punches they were not as refined and as accurate as authentic pieces (I'm sure we both agree here).
Second, the VAM descriptions of the Micro O family of counterfeits state these are 'cast counterfeits' (per VAM world - see 1901-O VAM 56, for example). This is almost certainly incorrect. These counterfeits were most likely made from the transfer die process, and therefore were struck counterfeits. Pouring metal into a mold (casting) provides far less consistent results than what is seen on the 'Micro O' counterfeits, especially with regards to bag marks, depressions, and raised areas. Rarely have I ever been able to identify the die marriage (or in this case VAM number) from a counterfeit made through casting; usually this can only reasonably be achieved on the early bust silver type counterfeits.
Getting back to the reason why the 1901-O probably is not related to the 1888-O and 1890-O is that this piece does not look like hand-cut dies, but more like a transfer die. The details on this piece are far more accurate to genuine Morgan dollars than the 1888-O and 1890-O.
The eagle type on the 1888-O and 1890-O (and the other three dates I own from this counterfeit family) all share the same eagle punch or hub. Specifically the thin row of feathers to the right side of the eagles breast are long, thin lines with well-spaced gaps. As such, this eagle is different than the 1901-O you have. This difference in eagle types further differentiates your piece from this larger family.
Now, many of the counterfeit family groups I've studied, especially on Capped Bust half dollar counterfeits (of which I have so far identified over 30 families), used multiple punch types and probably multiple sets of numbers and letters within the same counterfeit family group. These CBH counterfeiters also made their dies using the hand-punching dies method as well as the transfer die method to produce their counterfeits; on occasion I've even seen counterfeit varieties produced with one die being hand-cut and the other from a transfer die. In addition, on some of the largest counterfeit families (and some of the smallest families too), the portrait and eagle designs changed over time. often times these punch and portrait types became more refined and accurate over time (per my research on emission orders). Therefore, it is possible (although I'm not anywhere close to leaning to probable at this point in time) that these generally earlier dated hand-punched die counterfeits (1888-O, 1890-O, etc.) were precursors to the later 'Micro O' family which used the more accurate die production method of transfer die counterfeiting. Again, I have no evidence to support or contradict this hypothesis at this point in time, but it is coincidental that these counterfeits are all O mintmarked and made of about the same amount of sterling silver 90-95%
I'm certain my response here will open up to further discussion.
Would love to see pictures of the ones you describe.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@CaptHenway said:
Would love to see pictures of the ones you describe.
Will have Todd (BluCC) shoot these Morgan counterfeits specifically at the Long Beach show next weekend and will request close-ups. I'll post pics here once photos are received.
Punches and probably hubs were definitely used on the dates and lettering of the 1888-O and 1890-O family counterfeit pieces.
Absolutely NOT true for the 1888-O pictured on page 447 (4th edition) of the VAM Encyclopedia.
If your coin is different than the one pictured in the VAM book, then yes, your coin could have been made using digit punches. But if your coin is the same as the one pictured in the VAM book (as you previously implied in this thread), then it has a hand-engraved date (no punches used).
Here are scans of those two pages. Note that the caption for the 1888 date photo even states "Hand Engraved Date".
The 1890-O pictured is also completely hand-engraved (central devices, all letters, dates, etc.).
I can say with 100% certainty that the two 1888-O's I own have the same punch defect on the bottom loop of the three 8's in the date; this consistency would only occur from punches, and not hand-engraving. (Hand-engraved numbers and letters are nearly always FAR more crude and less consistent in their workmanship into the die (especially in terms of depth and width of the engraving)). Further, the same letter shapes and sizes show up on a couple of the dates, further testifying to punches being used. But I will say multiple letter and number punch types were used on this family. Further, on the 1890-O example I own, which is probably the same variety shown on page 446, shows a repunched 9 in the date (especially on the lower-left knob). I don't often see re-engraving on hand-cut die counterfeits, but quite often when punches were used. Certainly if this counterfeiter used punches they were not as refined and as accurate as authentic pieces (I'm sure we both agree here).
In the picture above, the upper loop inside middle 8 has a flat left side. Other variances in thickness from one 8 to the next indicate hand engraving. The apparent "re-punching" of the date digits is explained in the image caption as "strike doubling".
This would, however, indicate that these are not cast, but struck.
Second, the VAM descriptions of the Micro O family of counterfeits state these are 'cast counterfeits' (per VAM world - see 1901-O VAM 56, for example). This is almost certainly incorrect. These counterfeits were most likely made from the transfer die process, and therefore were struck counterfeits. Pouring metal into a mold (casting) provides far less consistent results than what is seen on the 'Micro O' counterfeits, especially with regards to bag marks, depressions, and raised areas. Rarely have I ever been able to identify the die marriage (or in this case VAM number) from a counterfeit made through casting; usually this can only reasonably be achieved on the early bust silver type counterfeits.
No, that is not correct. The micro-o family is die struck, from cast dies. The dies were cast; the coins were struck.
Getting back to the reason why the 1901-O probably is not related to the 1888-O and 1890-O is that this piece does not look like hand-cut dies, but more like a transfer die. The details on this piece are far more accurate to genuine Morgan dollars than the 1888-O and 1890-O.
There are numerous hand-engraved oddities on my 1901-O pictured above. Look at the top of the wreath bow. On my 1901-O the top is slanted. On normal Morgan Dollars it is not. The bow will not somehow become slanted during a transfer process. But it can when hand engraved.
The eagle type on the 1888-O and 1890-O (and the other three dates I own from this counterfeit family) all share the same eagle punch or hub. Specifically the thin row of feathers to the right side of the eagles breast are long, thin lines with well-spaced gaps. As such, this eagle is different than the 1901-O you have. This difference in eagle types further differentiates your piece from this larger family.
The counterfeiters could have easily used the same hand-engraved reverse die paired with "1888" and "1890" obverse dies. This would, of course, result in the same eagle on both coins. But it is still hand engraved.
@CaptHenway said:
Would love to see pictures of the ones you describe.
Will have Todd (BluCC) shoot these Morgan counterfeits specifically at the Long Beach show next weekend and will request close-ups. I'll post pics here once photos are received.
If I go to long beach (it's up in the air currently but I will unless I have to fly out to Ohio on business) I would like to see them if you don't mind. I'll be at table 872 (Prospectors Gold & Gems) all 4 days, if I'm not hanging around Todd's table when it's slow lol
@dcarr I wish you had the 1888-O, 1889-O, 1890-O, 1892-O, and 1899-O pieces from this counterfeit family in front of you to study. You would quickly see that punches were used on these. The 1888-O and 1890-O, as pictured in the book, appear to be the exact same varieties I own.
The 1888-O and 1890-O counterfeit Morgans on Page 446 and 447 of the VAM book both describe counterfeit Morgans from the same family group and thus the same manufacturing method in this case - through the use of punches, not engraving into the die (as described in the book). I would specifically like to direct your attention to the bottom of the 8's on the 1888-O. Note the indent or cut in the center of this bottom curve of the 8 which slants down to the right. This is consistent on each of the three 8s; shadows from the photo partially obscure this on the middle 8. This is not something you would get by individually hand-engraving numbers with a fine chisel or other engraving device. My 1899-O counterfeit from this same family uses the same '8' punch as used in the 1888-O described and listed above. I will let you reserve additional judgement on this after I get some high-quality close-ups.
Books like this without a strong focus on counterfeiting can and do make mistakes on counterfeiting methodology. I will admit that the number punches used in the dates of the 1888-O and 1890-O are not the best. Davignon's book on counterfeit CBHs, for instance, had loads of inaccuracies in this regard.
I could be wrong with the method of die production on the Micro O VAMs. Several varieties do show fields with micro-pitting and porosity, so a casting method to make these dies certainly is possible. The Transfer Die method just seems the most plausible method considering that the die steel would almost certainly be stronger and harder through the annealing process. I'm not sure how easily you could anneal a die that was cast.
Comments
@Rampage said: "...and they will not be holdered by PCGS, NGC, and ANACS."
Fortunately for collectors, ICG grades these fakes and puts them in their "Yellow Label" Counterfeit holder for educational purposes only. The "micro O" fakes fooled EVERYONE when they were included in in the silver dollar books decades ago.
The discovery of the "Large O" counterfeits was done recently by die linkage. Apparently this is still going on.
@messydesk said: "This family of counterfeits, comprising something like 15 die pairs, was made no later than the early 1940s. Coins that would grade AU58 or higher are extremely rare, as the freshly minted coins may have had to be tumbled with other circulating coins to wear them down a bit and make them pass in circulation."
Actually, an article appearing in the NY Times a little after the turn of the century reported the suspicious "Small O" dollars that were appearing at banks in San Francisco and other locations. These fakes were die struck and were around decades before 1940!
@CascadeChris said: "...I've fallen much farther behind due to the discovery of new privately-made die pairs."
Today the bulk of these counterfeits are in large lots of junk dollars destined for the refinery or sold to silver hoarders.
Cascade has "But I do have this (finest known micro-o) 1896-o."
To the best of my knowledge this is true. The "Discovery Coin," LOL - one in similar BU condition was slabbed in a PCI "Signature Series" slab around 1994 even after Mike Fazzari , a professional authenticator, sent a note along with the coin to the consultant stating that the coin was a counterfeit!
Going to dinner, more later
PS As PRIZ430 posted above: "Looked like it had a sand blasted finish....I thought it looked fake." This was exactly what caught Fazzari's eye. Remember, years before, ANACS had published a grainy 1996-P fake with a similar surface. The F to VF fakes were a different story. It is little wonder these went undetected for so long. Ther is a thread on one of the major forms about these fakes and the newspaper article. I read the article written by the Times on their web sight .
Are there any ideas where these are being made?
I suggest that they are not being made anymore. If someone had not resurrected an original dies and struck the BU coins at a time when any professional authenticator would consider them to be crude fakes (Fazzari's words), IMO it would have taken much longer to reach the level of research on these coins that we are at today.
Can you please send me a link to that NYT article?
And without having read the article, I am wondering if perhaps they were referring to the genuine 1899-o dollars that were in circulation with a smaller than normal mint mark. Somebody may have noted it and jumped to a wrong conclusion.
There was a story in the papers a year or two ago about some kid in Texas or Oklahoma whose grandmother gave him a $2 red seal note. The kid spent it at the high school cafeteria, and the cafeteria lady called the police! Several years ago there was a story about a guy who deposited some Ike dollars at a bank and the bank called the police because they knew that dollar coins were not that big!
I don't think I printed it. I commented on a thread about these coins where another researcher such as yourself posted that info (I never heard of it before) somewhere so give me some time to search all my former posts on CT. I'd be interested to read about it again. Hey, I'm having a flashback. In my post I quoted what I read in the Times link.
I have not noticed any region-specific pattern. I think I remember some talk that the high-grade (UNC) 1901-O VAM-60 pictured at VAMworld came from Idaho.
If a mini horde of higher grade piece were to surface, THAT would be a good indicator of the region of origin.
Single coins, not so much.
Found it on coin talk forum: I'll copy more of what I posted there:
"A little more history on these fakes. The name of the authenticator (already gave his name above) and Morgan dollar expert is withheld:
Decades ago counterfeit 1896-P Morgan's were detected at INSAB. Later, the ANACS authenticators also detected these and published an article in the Numismatist. The column is also in the Counterfeit Detection Reprint. The surface of these coins was microscopically granular and the relief was mushy. All coins seen were AU-UNC.
The first 1896 "Micro-O" counterfeit detected at a TPGS was sent to PCI in TN. The coin was Uncirculated. Microscopically, it was just as the 96-P so the same authenticator who detected the 1896-P's years earlier called the coin counterfeit! Nevertheless, the coin was sent to a Morgan dollar expert who disagreed. The coin went out of PCI as genuine in a "Signature" slab from that "expert."
When the authenticator left PCI to join another service, he was able to convince NGC to stop certifying the "Micro O" counterfeits dated 1896, 1899, and 1902. Several years later, the other TPGS followed. There has been extensive research on the die marriages and other dates have turned up, several with large "O" reverses."
Maybe it was this article, which seems curious. Maybe they got the date wrong in the article. Or perhaps these are not the VAM-listed they are writing about ?:
moonlightmint.com/VAM_privately_made/34.htm
I was thinking the same thing!
The above was from the CT thread "Contemporary Counterfeits." Nothing more there. I've been looking at my pasts posts on CT - no luck so far. Perhaps it is on this site. Anyway, I'll find it. Off to watch NAKED...and Afraid.
Ah off to watch 60 min. NOT
My 1902 O looks good (I think)
Just googled NY Times article about small O mintmarks = 3/13/98 pp#4
1900 O looks good. If anyone disagrees, please let me know (yn)
I doubt they got the date wrong. Morgan dollar counterfeiting at this time was HUGELY popular. I have several accounts which state 100,000's to millions of counterfeits in circulation at a time. While still a remarkably high amount of counterfeits, this article is just one of many similar accounts at the time.
I own a couple of hand-cut, die struck 90-95% silver (per XRF analysis) 1888-O counterfeit Morgans with Micro Os that are not listed on the VAM World site. These belong to a family of counterfeit Morgans which also include, at a minimum, 1889-O, 1890-O, 1892-O and 1899-O; other dates are likely to exist. These counterfeits are superb. The telltale distinctions between these and real coins is that the dates are larger than normal, lettering is thinner, and part of the wing detail is slightly different. If I had photo's of these I would be happy to share. And no, these are not your modern Chinese counterfeit types.
wasn't there a 1899 Micro O organ also?
Yup - might be related to the one I mentioned above
So these are also fake and thus worth a premium?
It all depends if you can find such a buyer!
That said, I paid $200-400 for the 1888-O through 1899-O counterfeits I mentioned above. Most of these are AU-UNC condition.
These one On ebay right now:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1899-MICRO-O-MORGAN-DOLLAR-PCGS-AU58-CAC-VAM5-LINES-IN-WING-/112423006784?hash=item1a2ceef240:g:omUAAOSwSlBYtFgo
Many more!!
There are many 'Micro O' Morgan dollars that are authentic - not all Micro O Morgans are counterfeit.
Get with the program. We're discussing micro O counterfeits.
Cool down insider2. I would read the last few posts if I were you, to gain some context to the assistance I was providing thebigeng, informing this forum member that not all Micro Os are counterfeit!
Good Night.
Fascinating! I am not familiar with this family. Would love to see some pictures.
I doubt that the NYT article refers to the main family we were talking about if only because most of the dates in it had not yet been struck as genuine coins.
I have never seen any of these and this is the first that I have heard of them.
If these 1888-O counterfeits were plentiful in Denver as the article stated, I certainly would have seen one in my many coin shop and coin show visits in Denver over the last 40 years. I am still skeptical as to the accuracy of that article. I definitely want to see pictures before I will change my mind on that.
I have a vintage counterfeit 1901-O from somewhat-crude hand-cut molds. It has about the right amount of silver in it:
Your coin is genuine.
@Rampage Thanks for confirming!
Well...this clinches it... I will pull out all my O coins and check them again...Cheers, RickO
Very interesting. I did not know there were any counterfeits that carried a premium. I'm just used to the evil China copy debacle.
@CaptHenway and @dcarr
I flipped through the book 'Comprehensive Catalog and Encyclopedia of Morgan and Peace Dollars' by Leroy Van Allen and A. George Mallis. Page 446 and 447 shows the 1888-O and 1890-O varieties I discuss above (and might be noted in the 1898 newspaper article). This book is not comprehensive on the counterfeits, but focuses on identifying the different methods of counterfeiting; the Micro O's which started this thread are not listed in this book. As such, this book only shows a couple of the known counterfeits from this family.
I would note that by ~1900 transportation was super easy. As such, smart counterfeiters were shipping and distributing their counterfeits, through 'shovers' (middle-men), far from the actual operation. As such, the counterfeit operation making these 1888-O (etc) dated counterfeits was probably based close to New Orleans, but distributed their counterfeits far away; the West was a popular place to distribute counterfeit Morgans at this time (at least in the 1880s and 1890s).
OK... got ALL my O coins out and checked.... every one is authentic.... darn, part of me was hoping I had a counterfeit...
Cheers, RickO
Ok, I did find those pictures in my book (fourth edition). Thanks for the tip.
They have similarities in engraving style to my 1901-O pictured above. So they might all be from the same source.
The 1898 New York Times article mentioned that the fakes were difficult to spot, even for government officials. These copies from hand-cut dies are rather easy to identify. So it still seems that something is amiss with the facts in that article.
But regardless, these hand-cut counterfeits (1888-O, 1890-O, 1901-O) will probably never be assigned VAM numbers because they are not part of the micro-o "family" that has a legacy of VAM listing.
Also, the VAM-listed privately-made coins are die-struck only. My 1901-O pictured above is cast, not die struck. I suspect the same is true for the 1888-O and 1890-O.
Too bad. If they will not be assigned VAM numbers, is there another way to catalog them?
Dan,
Your 1901-O is definitely not part of the 1888-O, 1889-O, 1890-O, 1892-O, 1899-O family. Different eagle type, and your example has smaller date punches. My 1888-O, 1889-O, 1890-O, 1892-O, 1899-O pieces are all die struck, sterling silver (92.5% silver, 7.5% copper; no other trace elements - per XRF analysis). I have a highly preliminary hypothesis that the Micro O counterfeit VAMs and these 1888-O, 1889-O, 1890-O, 1892-O, 1899-O pieces were made by the same counterfeiter/operation, for the following reasons:
1) 1888-O, 1889-O, 1890-O, 1892-O, 1899-O, and the Micro O VAMs are all New Orleans MM coins.
2) They all appear to be made of sterling silver without additional trace elements (per my XRF analysis of approximately 20 different varieties)
3) 1888-O, 1889-O, 1890-O, 1892-O, 1899-O may have been made first; nearly all of these that I own are AU/Unc, only 1 example is worn down to VG grade. These are generally dated earlier than the VAM Micro Os, exception being the 1893-O, 1894-O, and 1896-O micro O VAMs which are die linked to later date pieces, such as 1900-O, 1901-O, and 1902-O. These were clearly not in a tumbler or artificially worn like the VAM Micro Os. It could also be that a hoard of these was found once upon a time and thus why 90% of these that I've seen are all high grade, and many others exist in worn condition. The fact that these were made and distributed as high grade may have made them stick out more, and possibly be noticed more easily as 'not quite right' counterfeits. Overall, these varieties are pretty high quality, but as 'experts of Morgan dollars' we can easily spot the flaws - I doubt the lay-person in 1898 would quickly and easily pick out the very minor defects on these with their naked eye, unless they really had time to study them in good light.
4) The VAM micro O's may have been made after the 1888-O, 1889-O, 1890-O, 1892-O, 1899-O varieties. The counterfeiters may have learned from mistakes that were caused by these high grade examples and subsequently found ways to modify their designs/hubs, and artificially wear the coins down to make them less noticeable.
Again, this is just a working hypothesis at the moment. I will need to do A LOT more historical documentation searches before I can strengthen or dismiss this hypothesis.
But comparatively speaking, I have not seen many other hand-cut, die-struck counterfeit Morgan dollar varieties between these two family groups. Most other struck pieces are from transfer dies using debased silver planchets which look quasi-brassy (per XRF analysis).
A quick search found the following newspaper article from the Dec. 1, 1898 Brooklyn Daily Eagle showing 1888 to 1892-dated counterfeit dollars in circulation. It doesn't say 'O' mint pieces, but I'm fairly certain that's what this newspaper is referencing.
@Koinicker said: "I flipped through the book 'Comprehensive Catalog and Encyclopedia of Morgan and Peace Dollars' by Leroy Van Allen and A. George Mallis. Page 446 and 447 shows the 1888-O and 1890-O varieties I discuss above (and might be noted in the 1898 newspaper article). This book is not comprehensive on the counterfeits, but focuses on identifying the different methods of counterfeiting; the Micro O's which started this thread are not listed in this book. As such, this book only shows a couple of the known counterfeits from this family."
Actually, the very crude dollars pictured in Van Allen Mallis would not fool a drunken, blind, bank teller in the 1890's. They are not deceptive at all and are NOT the counterfeits described in the turn of the century articles.
Furthermore, the "micro-O" fakes are listed. Back then, they were called "Small O's." For example, the 1896-O VAM-4 "Small O" listed as R-6 is one of the "micro O" counterfeits. I'll let you look up the other "Small O" fakes listed along with the "Small O " genuine VAMS.
@Zoins said: "Too bad. If they will not be assigned VAM numbers, is there another way to catalog them?"
Yes, one day someone will write a book on crude fakes counterfeits as the Bust Half dollar folks have.
It seems the world is topsy-turvy. In the 1970's when a coin was determined to be counterfeit it lost its luster...LOL. That should have happened with the micro-O's They are counterfeits. However, lots of folks, including the TPGS's had $$$$ tied up in them so they remained "market acceptable." Lots of folks (including me) collect deceptive fakes. That is only one reason these counterfeits have held their value and even increased. As I wrote before, ICG even grades them!
I'll bet @Koinicker is correct and that all the die struck Micro O and Large O fakes are the ones that caused such a panic at the turn of the century.
Thanks for the update on the 'Small O' which are now 'Micro O'. I am not a Morgan dollar collector, so I appreciate this update.
I'd like to see a 'drunken, blind, bank teller' from the 1890's try to differentiate the 1888-O and 1890-O Morgan counterfeits from real ones. I digress....
Regarding the 1888-O, 1890-O, 1892-O, etc. Morgans, I described above, I'm finding stronger and stronger evidence to support that they were made between 1897-1900 based on historical accounts and surviving examples. Further, the article DCarr found further supports that assessment. It seems they were initially distributed at the beginning of 1898, and continued to be released into circulation for at least 1-2 more years as the similar accounts consistently mention these exact same dates with O mintmarks. These counterfeits were popping up in large quantities in Denver, Mississippi, and the northeast states (NY, PA) within about a 6 month period. These accounts are far more than just mere coincidence. Counterfeiters striking coins of this silver fineness and quality would be few and far between, and would require similar skills and equipment as the U.S. Mint and its employees. This was at a time when nearly all other counterfeiters were either casting their Morgan counterfeits, or striking them from softer metals/alloys. And regarding quality, given that so many counterfeit Morgans at this time were made from cast tin/lead alloys, or brass-type alloys, these counterfeits stand out as exceptionally better than those cast types. As such, you can't necessarily compare the authentic pieces to these and compare quality, but rather compare the other cast counterfeits to these far superior counterfeits, and thats when you get the accounts of their high quality - die workmanship, weight, size, ring, etc. I'm still searching to see if I can find any arrest records which tie these pieces to specific people and a location. Th
I've even found an article describing operations in Mexico making sterling silver counterfeit Morgans without the 'M' initials at the bottom of the counterfeits. I happen to own an 1891 counterfeit Morgan which is the only example in my collection without the M initials. I can't make the connection that this is one of those Mexican-made counterfeits, but it's certainly a possibility given that other diagnostics are similar; if this article described specifically 1891-dated pieces being made there could be a strong case of correlation, but right now I'm too far away.
I think we both agree that the 1888-O and 1890-O counterfeits pictured in the VAM book, as well as my 1901-O pictured earlier, are all from hand-cut molds/dies. But I disagree with your reasoning as to why you think the 1901-O is not associated with the other two. Of course the "eagle type" is going to be different - these are hand-cut pieces we are talking about. And there were no "punches" used - the date digits were also hand-engraved like the rest of it. So those digits will vary in size and style from die to die, even if made by the same person.
The hand-cut family and the micro-o family have significantly different production techniques. I doubt that the same entity produced both, although it is possible.
I strongly suspect they are from different makers. The quality of the "Micro o" and related family fakes are so good I cannot see them making the hand cut ones.
Terrific thread, thanks for posting
BHNC #203
Robert Gurney's book on Counterfeit Portrait Eight Reales has an interesting interview with a counterfeiter. I quoted it in my post on the other thread:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/935169/tell-me-about-the-1900-o-micro-o/p1
Here's a picture of the first counterfeit Portrait counterfeit that I got from a self-confessed counterfeiter in 1960-2 who said he made it in Massachusetts the 1920s. The coin has been proven to have too little gold as a contaminant (to have been made in 1805) by two different XRF laboratories and this coin is the basis for my belief that full weight silver counterfeits were produced for the China trade as late as 1930.
A recent test run at RTI International has returned a preliminary signature match with an example of the 1896-O micro O Morgan dollar. I am resubmitting both coins to RTI next week for XRF re-testing with a brand new state of the art XRF testing machine which will do far finer analysis of the trace contamination (down to 1 ppm for 72 elements) in the hopes of proving that the source of both coins is identical.
Perhaps the hand-cut's were their first attempt then they refined their method. Either way it's intriguing.
Punches and probably hubs were definitely used on the dates and lettering of the 1888-O and 1890-O family counterfeit pieces. I can say with 100% certainty that the two 1888-O's I own have the same punch defect on the bottom loop of the three 8's in the date; this consistency would only occur from punches, and not hand-engraving. (Hand-engraved numbers and letters are nearly always FAR more crude and less consistent in their workmanship into the die (especially in terms of depth and width of the engraving)). Further, the same letter shapes and sizes show up on a couple of the dates, further testifying to punches being used. But I will say multiple letter and number punch types were used on this family. Further, on the 1890-O example I own, which is probably the same variety shown on page 446, shows a repunched 9 in the date (especially on the lower-left knob). I don't often see re-engraving on hand-cut die counterfeits, but quite often when punches were used. Certainly if this counterfeiter used punches they were not as refined and as accurate as authentic pieces (I'm sure we both agree here).
Second, the VAM descriptions of the Micro O family of counterfeits state these are 'cast counterfeits' (per VAM world - see 1901-O VAM 56, for example). This is almost certainly incorrect. These counterfeits were most likely made from the transfer die process, and therefore were struck counterfeits. Pouring metal into a mold (casting) provides far less consistent results than what is seen on the 'Micro O' counterfeits, especially with regards to bag marks, depressions, and raised areas. Rarely have I ever been able to identify the die marriage (or in this case VAM number) from a counterfeit made through casting; usually this can only reasonably be achieved on the early bust silver type counterfeits.
Getting back to the reason why the 1901-O probably is not related to the 1888-O and 1890-O is that this piece does not look like hand-cut dies, but more like a transfer die. The details on this piece are far more accurate to genuine Morgan dollars than the 1888-O and 1890-O.
The eagle type on the 1888-O and 1890-O (and the other three dates I own from this counterfeit family) all share the same eagle punch or hub. Specifically the thin row of feathers to the right side of the eagles breast are long, thin lines with well-spaced gaps. As such, this eagle is different than the 1901-O you have. This difference in eagle types further differentiates your piece from this larger family.
Now, many of the counterfeit family groups I've studied, especially on Capped Bust half dollar counterfeits (of which I have so far identified over 30 families), used multiple punch types and probably multiple sets of numbers and letters within the same counterfeit family group. These CBH counterfeiters also made their dies using the hand-punching dies method as well as the transfer die method to produce their counterfeits; on occasion I've even seen counterfeit varieties produced with one die being hand-cut and the other from a transfer die. In addition, on some of the largest counterfeit families (and some of the smallest families too), the portrait and eagle designs changed over time. often times these punch and portrait types became more refined and accurate over time (per my research on emission orders). Therefore, it is possible (although I'm not anywhere close to leaning to probable at this point in time) that these generally earlier dated hand-punched die counterfeits (1888-O, 1890-O, etc.) were precursors to the later 'Micro O' family which used the more accurate die production method of transfer die counterfeiting. Again, I have no evidence to support or contradict this hypothesis at this point in time, but it is coincidental that these counterfeits are all O mintmarked and made of about the same amount of sterling silver 90-95%
I'm certain my response here will open up to further discussion.
Would love to see pictures of the ones you describe.
Will have Todd (BluCC) shoot these Morgan counterfeits specifically at the Long Beach show next weekend and will request close-ups. I'll post pics here once photos are received.
Absolutely NOT true for the 1888-O pictured on page 447 (4th edition) of the VAM Encyclopedia.
If your coin is different than the one pictured in the VAM book, then yes, your coin could have been made using digit punches. But if your coin is the same as the one pictured in the VAM book (as you previously implied in this thread), then it has a hand-engraved date (no punches used).
Here are scans of those two pages. Note that the caption for the 1888 date photo even states "Hand Engraved Date".
The 1890-O pictured is also completely hand-engraved (central devices, all letters, dates, etc.).
In the picture above, the upper loop inside middle 8 has a flat left side. Other variances in thickness from one 8 to the next indicate hand engraving. The apparent "re-punching" of the date digits is explained in the image caption as "strike doubling".
This would, however, indicate that these are not cast, but struck.
No, that is not correct. The micro-o family is die struck, from cast dies. The dies were cast; the coins were struck.
There are numerous hand-engraved oddities on my 1901-O pictured above. Look at the top of the wreath bow. On my 1901-O the top is slanted. On normal Morgan Dollars it is not. The bow will not somehow become slanted during a transfer process. But it can when hand engraved.
The counterfeiters could have easily used the same hand-engraved reverse die paired with "1888" and "1890" obverse dies. This would, of course, result in the same eagle on both coins. But it is still hand engraved.
If I go to long beach (it's up in the air currently but I will unless I have to fly out to Ohio on business) I would like to see them if you don't mind. I'll be at table 872 (Prospectors Gold & Gems) all 4 days, if I'm not hanging around Todd's table when it's slow lol
@dcarr I wish you had the 1888-O, 1889-O, 1890-O, 1892-O, and 1899-O pieces from this counterfeit family in front of you to study. You would quickly see that punches were used on these. The 1888-O and 1890-O, as pictured in the book, appear to be the exact same varieties I own.
The 1888-O and 1890-O counterfeit Morgans on Page 446 and 447 of the VAM book both describe counterfeit Morgans from the same family group and thus the same manufacturing method in this case - through the use of punches, not engraving into the die (as described in the book). I would specifically like to direct your attention to the bottom of the 8's on the 1888-O. Note the indent or cut in the center of this bottom curve of the 8 which slants down to the right. This is consistent on each of the three 8s; shadows from the photo partially obscure this on the middle 8. This is not something you would get by individually hand-engraving numbers with a fine chisel or other engraving device. My 1899-O counterfeit from this same family uses the same '8' punch as used in the 1888-O described and listed above. I will let you reserve additional judgement on this after I get some high-quality close-ups.
Books like this without a strong focus on counterfeiting can and do make mistakes on counterfeiting methodology. I will admit that the number punches used in the dates of the 1888-O and 1890-O are not the best. Davignon's book on counterfeit CBHs, for instance, had loads of inaccuracies in this regard.
I could be wrong with the method of die production on the Micro O VAMs. Several varieties do show fields with micro-pitting and porosity, so a casting method to make these dies certainly is possible. The Transfer Die method just seems the most plausible method considering that the die steel would almost certainly be stronger and harder through the annealing process. I'm not sure how easily you could anneal a die that was cast.