Another Efake?? 1878s Rev 1921??? Or ???
Am I goofy or getting better at spotting fakes? What's up with the top feather?
link
link
Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
jeff
jeff
0
Comments
if it is, it is very good.
.
-Paul
<< <i>Am I goofy or getting better at spotting fakes? What's up with the top feather?
link >>
You are goofy.
Looks good to me. But, no worries, I won't be bidding you up on it. The mm does not look like a 1921 mm to me. Could be fake despite my opinion--let's hear from the VAM experts!!
bob
[URL=http://s1094.photobucket.com/user/blacksmoke1994/media/1879sPAF_rev_zpseca0d87f.jpg.html]
[URL=http://s1094.photobucket.com/user/blacksmoke1994/media/1879sSAF_rev_zps93042b81.jpg.html]
jeff
jeff
bob
jeff
i 100% disagree it resembles the rev of a 21 p,d,s - the only thing looks a bit off to me is the date but i'm not up for vamming those small images or doing a date comp. i feel like melted butter at this point
hope it helps
Auction cancelled.
rodorr
bob
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
jeff
to a dealer to have it looked at a little closer.
bob
The MM does not look like a 21, but the AF are parallel and not slanted and they are fat like a 21. Also look at the shaft, the nock, on the eBay specimen. It is neither the 78 short nor long nock. It looks more like the 21 nock. And it is not a 79 rev because it is definitely not a slanted AF.
but the MM is not a 21S MM. It is too big. I think this was changed because a small MM would be too obvious a mistake.
jeff
<< <i>The mm is definitely wrong. As far as the weight and diameter being spot on, seems funny that someone is up at 3:30 in the morning (United Kingdom) that normally sells scarves, and has a scale and a set of calipers handy. lol. Who knows. I think we could all be in agreement though, FAKE. lol >>
minus me
ur comments from that post are LOL
.
There. Now we have an accurate tally.
jeff
<< <i>
<< <i>The mm is definitely wrong. As far as the weight and diameter being spot on, seems funny that someone is up at 3:30 in the morning (United Kingdom) that normally sells scarves, and has a scale and a set of calipers handy. lol. Who knows. I think we could all be in agreement though, FAKE. lol >>
minus me
Me, too.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I think we can all agree this is not a 79 w/ 78 reverse.
now for 79 rev 79:
I admit the eagle's feathers more closely resemble a rev 79 over a 21
I admit the mintmark resembles a rev 79 MM
but
this is not a slanted arrow feather reverse 79.
Using the zoom on ebay shows fat parallel arrow feathers like a rev 21.
(select the pictures, then click again to overlay the images over the auction, then click again to get the magnifying glass zoom)
I think this is a frankencoin and a fake.
comments on the pictures posted and the arrow feathers?
EDIT: 1921 Morgans do have a wider top arrow feather than the 2nd reverse (PAF).
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution