Early, early on in my Trade Dollar collecting days I won an unattributed 76-CC DDR on eBay. The coin was cleaned and had some microscopic porosity on the surfaces that I attributed to salt water damage. But the more I looked at the surfaces the more they bothered me. Something was not right, so I sent it in the be authenticated and sure enough, it was a cast counterfeit. Lesson learned.
<< <i>super interesting thread and I'm sorry for the trouble for both the buyer (the OP) and the seller- providing that they didn't know the dubious questions that this coin generated.
I'm thankful I haven't been drawn into this series. I've seen some nice ones come through one of my local shops too!
This kind of stuff has spooked me off from this series, and has me concerned as to the future of this hobby entirely. >>
I am concerned too. Fake coins, fake plastic, crooks.
The Golden Rule: Those with the gold make the rules.
Very interesting thread. Thanks for sharing. I think that TDs are very interesting and attractive coins. Unfortunately the fakes have scared me away from collecting them.
<< <i>I think that TDs are very interesting and attractive coins. Unfortunately the fakes have scared me away from collecting them. >>
Is it safe to collect TDs in slabs or are there too many counterfeits out there? >>
There are way more fake morgans in fake slabs than trade dollars, probably by 1000%. If that's what you meant. >>
That is misleading; Morgans are much more popular and available. TDs are cool, but a minefield for non-experts. And the fakes are getting better and better.
Some knowledgeable posters have opined that the coin might not be fake. They are going by a photo, but PCGS has seen the actual coin, and PCGS personnel are at least as familiar with this series as those in the possibly real camp. No way I would keep any coin that was PCGS said was counterfeit, no matter how much I wanted it to be genuine. That is simply intellectually dishonest.
And selling this coin as a counterfeit is problematic.
Bad Karma to support thieves. JMHO
The Golden Rule: Those with the gold make the rules.
<< <i>I think that TDs are very interesting and attractive coins. Unfortunately the fakes have scared me away from collecting them. >>
Is it safe to collect TDs in slabs or are there too many counterfeits out there? >>
There are way more fake morgans in fake slabs than trade dollars, probably by 1000%. If that's what you meant. >>
That is misleading; Morgans are much more popular and available. TDs are cool, but a minefield for non-experts. And the fakes are getting better and better.
Some knowledgeable posters have opined that the coin might not be fake. They are going by a photo, but PCGS has seen the actual coin, and PCGS personnel are at least as familiar with this series as those in the possibly real camp. No way I would keep any coin that was PCGS said was counterfeit, no matter how much I wanted it to be genuine. That is simply intellectually dishonest.
And selling this coin as a counterfeit is problematic.
Bad Karma to support thieves. JMHO >>
I see what you're saying, but I'll point out there are way more beginner collectors pursuing Morgans, and way more advanced collectors pursuing trade dollars. I feel the greater danger overall lies with the former. But sure, there are some really sophisticated fake TDs out there.
Like I said earlier, I don't blame PCGS for making this call. But keep in mind that a few members here have spent many many hours studying this particular variety, being such a dramatic doubled die and so rare. PCGS was armed with the coin, but less knowledge of the variety. Others here are armed with much knowledge but just a picture. It's going to be tough for both parties, I hope this coin ends up with someone who can really study it.
I had always thought that if the coin was questionable, PCGS would bodybag it as "Questionable Authenticity" or "Authenticity Unverifiable." However, if PCGS was pretty certain it was fake it would come back "Counterfeit." I could be wrong on this, but if true it means that PCGS was not on the fence on this one. I, too, though would like to see it in hand.
<< <i>What happened to cmerlo1, the first, and the only poster to question the authenticity of the coin BEFORE Dave posted the PCGS results?
He must be sitting back just enjoying this thread. >>
Great monday morning quarterbacking here.
You do realize that PCGS has holdered many coins after initially calling them counterfeit right? I know of at least 3 trade dollars that were called fake that are now in graded PCGS holders.
After talking with a number of advanced TD collectors, the consensus is mostly that this coin is real. The most skeptical response I heard was "I would be shocked if it was actually fake".
Didn't see this thread on its initial run, but my very first opinion on seeing the coin without even reading the OP was that it was counterfeit. The pimply surfaces in the field (especially above extended arm, behind left arm, reverse near eagles neck and in left field above arrows near wing) scream cast counterfeit, plus the general color and appearance of streaky/splotchy blackish toning is a hallmark of many trade dollar cast counterfeits. I have an ENTIRE date run set of these coins and many look very similar to the one posted. Frankly I am quite surprised at the efforts of some to challenge PCGS opinion on the coin especially given that they had the coin in hand and very nearly none here did. This is actually NOT a deceiving counterfeit IMO. There ARE struck counterfeit trade dollars, including the rare 1876-CC DDR which ARE very deceiving. This isn't in that ball park at all! Once you understand the process of making cast counterfeit coins and are aware of the signs to look for coins like this will not pose a problem. If you can't distinguish a cast counterfeit trade dollar from a struck trade dollar...your in the wrong series IMO. Coin is counterfeit and this series is not one to try to get rich quick by cherrypicking IMO.
Has to be one of the dumbest counterfeiters out there to list it with a low BIN. I thought those folks typically rely on people bidding up rare coins into the stratosphere. Or was it listed by a dealer who didn't know what they had? Strange situation the way it was sold too.
@tradedollarnut said:
I would have kept it as a counterfeit. Too cool
I did, strange coin. All the pick up points match so it is either a cast copy or fire damage. Chops are weird but the reed count lines are the same as a real one. cast copies just make transfer dies and use a striking process still I assume? In that case what are the chances of a similar reed count collar being used by forgers? If it was just a pure cast, there is no was it would have such sharp details.
I flip flop between fire damage (smells burnt and has black crud in places) and fake. I agree with Realon...err....Afford that the chances of a counterfiters grabbing a random 76-s DDO to use as a master are very very slim.
I flip flop between fire damage (smells burnt and has black crud in places) and fake.......the chances of a counterfiters grabbing a random 76-s DDO to use as a master are very very slim.
xrf that puppy, a few diff spots.
send her to me, i know a few dealers that can do it.
.
OP's coin is not a very good fake as mentioned by greghanson.
Transfer dies are not needed to make cast counterfeits. In fact using transfer dies involves more labor, much heavier duty equipment, and results in much poorer surfaces.
Sorry I can't get good enough images of some gold Indians I made in dental school (43 yrs ago) that are many times sharper than the OP's coin. At shows dealers will tell wife what a nice 5 Indian she has for a neckless.
Similar to the split mold used to make lead weights for fishing, dental impression material (one class are silicone impression materials used in industry and probably available on ebay) will make a very sharp impression to make resin or wax patterns to be used in the lost wax technique. Another advantage is one can modify the impression surface before making patterns.
If one has an old oven with cleaning cycle all the materials, casting machine, and torch can be purchased for under $500
In my other hobbies to make larger castings I use cheap plaster of paris. Even on coins you can get a very fine impression with watery mix and vibrator to reduce bubbles and flow onto surface.
Dental impression are elastic and don't damage a coin surface but plaster might etch coin (fine if slider generic coin).
BTW one can make a super light weight fake by gold plating a resin pattern made from same technique.
It's not like one can do a mold/lost wax and spit out a dimensionally correct replica of a coin or most anything else.
I'm sure that's correct for most manufacturing to have shrinkage but adjustments to technique can be made to compensate for shrinkage
Dental gold crowns have to be accurate otherwise they would not fit over the prep " stump" if any shrinkage has taken place.
In dental casting the issue of shrinkage is addressed by mold expansion by hydroscopic expansion (basically soaking in water) equal to the approx. 1.5% shrinkage of molten gold. This expansion results in a pattern cavity space that is larger than the original pattern.
Of course the result is never prefect but if anything the crown must be oversized since a crown will not go on if too tight.
The fit of a gold crown is why today you will still see dentists prefer using this "old fashion" type of crown on back teeth where cosmetics is not a concern.
Also for those who grind their teeth gold is softer (although alloyed to be harder than pure gold) and will wear better with teeth than porcelain which is harder than enamel.
I had the opportunity to study this coin so here’s some additional thoughts and info.
Compared it to my own example which has the highest level of detail of any example of this variety I know of (AU details). The coins are a match from the standpoint of they shared the same dies (assuming they were both struck). As previously stated the reed count matched at 183. Other than the surfaces, there’s nothing obvious to say that it was cast. The coin sure appears to have been exposed to heat (both from appearance and smell) and I wonder if that’s what caused the disturbed surfaces.
With so few examples of this DDO variety out there (12 or 13 known) and all of them mid-AU details and lower, I’m still having a hard time understanding how a cast counterfeit could be produced. Sure, doesn’t mean I know of all the examples out there and it’s an exciting thought to consider there could be a mint state example out there that was used to create the mold. That just seems like a stretch.
The chopmarks are different than what I’m used to, but I see new/different looking chopmarks pretty often. I look at chopmarked coins every day and own a few hundred of them.
For what it’s worth the coin was submitted alongside my AU example (in its PCGS holder) to PCGS for comparison and the verdict was still counterfeit. In talking it over with PCGS, the primary reason they didn’t like it was actually the weight. I weighed it and as you can see below it’s a little under the 27.20g you’d expect. That’s 1.2% low, understandable to not trust it but I do wonder if the chopmarks could account for this amount of weight loss.
There are several great opinions on this thread. To the OP, the images of the coin on Ebay are terrible and all washed out. IMO, no one could have thought the coin was a fake from them based on the coin itself. The chops are another thing. In my experience, chops like that are very scarce. That was the first thing that caught my eye. Nevertheless, the coin looked genuine.
Now, the photo you posted after receiving the coin is much better. In MHO, there is a one in a thousand chance the coin is a cast. They don't cast deceptive coins anymore. The main problem with your coin is the raised pimples (one usual indication of a cast). These were not visible in the washed out photo but show up very well in the other photo. Note the group by the "F" in "OF." Corrosion virtually always goes into the surface. When corrosion products are found that are raised on a surface they generally do not take the shape of the pimples I've pointed out.
Just as an aside [forget you ever heard this], I learned that some old time professional authenticators named any of the extraneous metal seen on a coin (can occur on both genuine and C/F's) in places where it did not belong - like the middle of the fields - "EM." That covered all the raised metal except for die rust.
I don't know what the coin cost you but there are collectors such as myself who are lucky to purchase deceptive fakes. One thing we'll never know without seeing the fabric of the coin under a stereo microscope, was the coin a contemporary C/F? In that case it possibly was a casting. But remember this, the "micro-O" Morgan C/F's circulated at the turn of the century and they were definitely struck.
@CoinsAndMoreCoins said:
Dan, so you still are uncertain after holding it in hand while owning authentic similar coins?
I really want to believe it's real, and I think we can explain the oddities away (surface and weight being off). The most convincing aspect to me though, that it's real, is the question of how it could have been created for such a rare variety. There's just a really really small chance that the counterfeiters got ahold of a mint state example to copy from. More likely, in my opinion, is that ALL examples of this variety are not authentic if this one isn't. (and to be clear, I DO NOT believe all examples are fake)
Have all verified legit variants of this coin been weighed and what is the range?
I'll check my notes tonight and report back on my AU example.
What were the secondary reasons?
Was the specific gravity of either coin compared?
Any scientific testing performed?
A 3d point cloud rendered?
None of this, to my knowledge, has been carried out.
What would the actual value of this coin be if legit?
I'd put a value of around $2k on it, in a PCGS gen holder. Just a guess though.
Just because the weight is a little off is no reason to condemn the coin; however, chops on a coin do not remove enough metal to greatly affect the weight because chops push metal back into the coin.
The fellows at TPGS are pretty good. Unfortunately, I know of only one who uses a stereomicroscope to examine virtually every coin sent in. Other authenticators use a scope very occasionally to examine questionable pieces. That said, mistakes do occur and many times, the newest, deceptive fakes, escape a quick eyeball examination and get slabbed until they are finally detected.
We are looking at images here. PCGS had a genuine specimen to use as a comparison piece. That fact alone (besides the horrible surface of the coin) is all that is needed for me to side with their opinion.
If I were in this situation, I would send the genuine coin in the PCGS slab PLUS the questionable coin to ICG - attention Mike Fazzari. Call first and it is a sure thing he'll want to check it for free just to have a record of it one way or another. The old guy has been an authenticator at several TPGS since 1972. He just had an article published on new Trade $ varieties and has been studying these coins for decades.
I flip flop between fire damage (smells burnt and has black crud in places) and fake.......the chances of a counterfiters grabbing a random 76-s DDO to use as a master are very very slim.
xrf that puppy, a few diff spots.
send her to me, i know a few dealers that can do it.
.
What is a XRF and what would it tell us? Would it matter if TENNDAVE soaked it in acetone prior to submitting it the first time? I could be convinced to ship it for study. Also could bring to Baltimore Friday if anybody wanted a gander.
I have also considered saltwater damage opposed to heat. It reminds me somewhat of sea salvage coins.
I've seen the coin in person. My initial reaction was genuine, but then when I looked closer I changed my mind. A couple of things bother me:
--The chop on Miss Liberty's arm appears to just sit there on her arm. It does not appear to be struck with force. It's hard to explain, but after seeing thousands and thousands of chops, the look of that chop is just not natural.
--The surfaces remind me of other cast counterfeits I've seen.
--The weight is too low. In fact, it is way too low. A Trade Dollar weighs 27.20 grams. I've seen genuine worn and chopmarked ones weighing 27.10. I don't think I have ever seen a genuine Trade Dollar below 27.0.
But I just can't get over the fact that this is a 76-S DDO. As others have said, there are maybe 12-13 known. The odds of a counterfeitter picking this coin to copy are astronomical.
This series was one of the very first to be counterfeited in the recent era. I believe fake trade dollars from Asian sources started appearing around 1998. The fakers have had nearly twenty years to perfect their product. Judging from the comments in this thread they may now have reached the point where they can fool even experts in the field. Think about what this means ... to say that it is not a positive development is an understatement. Personally, I wouldn't touch a raw Trade Dollar. I'm not experienced with them and have no confidence in my ability to spot the better quality fakes.
Trade Dollars by their very nature were supposed to be exacting weight wise.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@Justacommeman said:
Trade Dollars by their very nature were supposed to be exacting weight wise.
Which is the reason the SF mint was scolded in this timeframe by Philadelphia for the quality of their coins. If I remember correctly, both weight and thickness were short. There was a letter to this effect, but I can't remember off-hand where I saw it.
@LanceNewmanOCC said:
.
27.216
.097 tol
27.119 down
27.313 up
not much wiggle room.
actual weights from a large sampling would help. a few xrf of obv/rev would settle this. imo
perhaps specific grav test?
See above post re. weight.
Also, there are scary good fakes that pass XRF. Specifically an 1873-CC was tested and "passed", the theory being the fake may have been created from actual melted trade dollars. The only way it was caught was the dies were previously unknown, sort of the like the micro o morgans. The coin was cracked out of an NNC holder.
@CoinsAndMoreCoins said:
Any coin dollars of this general era minted sans such tight weight tolerances or with known authentic examples falling outside such a tight range?
you wanna see tight, check out the gold coins tolerance for these classics. just wow
Let me attempt to make a point as I'm going crazy reading some of these posts. I just spoke with a fairly knowledgeable professional authenticator at a major TPGS. I plan to confirm what he told me tomorrow when I speak to another professional authenticator at a different major service. THERE ARE NO DECEPTIVE CAST COUNTERFEITS of coins that were originally die struck! There have NOT been any DECEPTIVE cast counterfeits in over thirty years according to the authenticator with almost fifty years experience. The deceptive fakes entering the market are DIE STRUCK. Almost forty years ago the authenticators at two different services stopped weighing coins, counting edge reeds, and measuring them (sp. gr., thickness, diameter) because they found that any state-of-the-art counterfeit that they could not identify using just a stereo scope would pass all the tests! Counterfeiters were able to transfer even tiny lines of die polish from a genuine coin onto a fake as far back as 1974.
Examples of the best counterfeits made today have already been slabbed as genuine by every major TPGS until they were detected. They pass all the tests. The authenticator I spoke with told me that up until about five years ago, he could remove a coin from its flip, move it over to the scope (most of the time that's all he needed to know if it was genuine) and in about three seconds under the scope determine if his gut reaction was correct. Now he told me that he often needs to spend several minutes under the scope on some coins like Early dollars and Trade dollars to arrive at a determination. Are you starting to get the problem? A professional authenticator who has studied at least tens of thousands of coins for almost fifty years at a level of magnification NONE OF YOU USE is having a difficult time authenticating some coins! Now, bang 'em up, clean 'em, corrode them, chemically etch them and the real fun begins.
The Trade dollar in this thread is either genuine or counterfeit. One quality grading service has said it was bad and they had a genuine example to compare it to. Authentication does not get any easier than that. If you believe the grading service made an error, send the coin to Rick Montgomery (NGC) or Skip Fazzari (ICG) for another opinion. I'm betting that any other group of professionals who are given the questionable coin and the genuine example to compare will make short work of it. If they cannot, they don't deserve to be in the business!!!
Otherwise, this thread will go on, and, on , and....
PS The chances that a hand-held analyzer will settle this are slim to none
Comments
Complete Set of Chopmarked Trade Dollars
Carson City Silver Dollars Complete 1870-1893http://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase.aspx?sc=2722"
<< <i>super interesting thread and I'm sorry for the trouble for both the buyer (the OP) and the seller- providing that they didn't know the dubious questions that this coin generated.
I'm thankful I haven't been drawn into this series.
I've seen some nice ones come through one of my local shops too!
This kind of stuff has spooked me off from this series, and has me concerned as to the future of this hobby entirely. >>
I am concerned too. Fake coins, fake plastic, crooks.
Is it safe to collect TDs in slabs or are there too many counterfeits out there?
<< <i>
<< <i>I think that TDs are very interesting and attractive coins. Unfortunately the fakes have scared me away from collecting them. >>
Is it safe to collect TDs in slabs or are there too many counterfeits out there? >>
There are way more fake morgans in fake slabs than trade dollars, probably by 1000%. If that's what you meant.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I think that TDs are very interesting and attractive coins. Unfortunately the fakes have scared me away from collecting them. >>
Is it safe to collect TDs in slabs or are there too many counterfeits out there? >>
There are way more fake morgans in fake slabs than trade dollars, probably by 1000%. If that's what you meant. >>
I was in a B&M about 2-3 years ago and the dealer had just bought 2 $10,000 dollar bags and i would guess 50% of them were counterfeit
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I think that TDs are very interesting and attractive coins. Unfortunately the fakes have scared me away from collecting them. >>
Is it safe to collect TDs in slabs or are there too many counterfeits out there? >>
There are way more fake morgans in fake slabs than trade dollars, probably by 1000%. If that's what you meant. >>
That is misleading; Morgans are much more popular and available. TDs are cool, but a minefield for non-experts. And the fakes are getting better and better.
Some knowledgeable posters have opined that the coin might not be fake. They are going by a photo, but PCGS has seen the actual coin, and PCGS personnel are at least as familiar with this series as those in the possibly real camp. No way I would keep any coin that was PCGS said was counterfeit, no matter how much I wanted it to be genuine. That is simply intellectually dishonest.
And selling this coin as a counterfeit is problematic.
Bad Karma to support thieves. JMHO
<< <i>I would have kept it as a counterfeit. Too cool >>
Well he sent it back so make an offer!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I think that TDs are very interesting and attractive coins. Unfortunately the fakes have scared me away from collecting them. >>
Is it safe to collect TDs in slabs or are there too many counterfeits out there? >>
There are way more fake morgans in fake slabs than trade dollars, probably by 1000%. If that's what you meant. >>
That is misleading; Morgans are much more popular and available. TDs are cool, but a minefield for non-experts. And the fakes are getting better and better.
Some knowledgeable posters have opined that the coin might not be fake. They are going by a photo, but PCGS has seen the actual coin, and PCGS personnel are at least as familiar with this series as those in the possibly real camp. No way I would keep any coin that was PCGS said was counterfeit, no matter how much I wanted it to be genuine. That is simply intellectually dishonest.
And selling this coin as a counterfeit is problematic.
Bad Karma to support thieves. JMHO >>
I see what you're saying, but I'll point out there are way more beginner collectors pursuing Morgans, and way more advanced collectors pursuing trade dollars. I feel the greater danger overall lies with the former. But sure, there are some really sophisticated fake TDs out there.
Like I said earlier, I don't blame PCGS for making this call. But keep in mind that a few members here have spent many many hours studying this particular variety, being such a dramatic doubled die and so rare. PCGS was armed with the coin, but less knowledge of the variety. Others here are armed with much knowledge but just a picture. It's going to be tough for both parties, I hope this coin ends up with someone who can really study it.
He must be sitting back just enjoying this thread.
Complete Set of Chopmarked Trade Dollars
Carson City Silver Dollars Complete 1870-1893http://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase.aspx?sc=2722"
<< <i>What happened to cmerlo1, the first, and the only poster to question the authenticity of the coin BEFORE Dave posted the PCGS results?
He must be sitting back just enjoying this thread. >>
Great monday morning quarterbacking here.
You do realize that PCGS has holdered many coins after initially calling them counterfeit right? I know of at least 3 trade dollars that were called fake that are now in graded PCGS holders.
After talking with a number of advanced TD collectors, the consensus is mostly that this coin is real. The most skeptical response I heard was "I would be shocked if it was actually fake".
Didn't see this thread on its initial run, but my very first opinion on seeing the coin without even reading the OP was that it was counterfeit. The pimply surfaces in the field (especially above extended arm, behind left arm, reverse near eagles neck and in left field above arrows near wing) scream cast counterfeit, plus the general color and appearance of streaky/splotchy blackish toning is a hallmark of many trade dollar cast counterfeits. I have an ENTIRE date run set of these coins and many look very similar to the one posted. Frankly I am quite surprised at the efforts of some to challenge PCGS opinion on the coin especially given that they had the coin in hand and very nearly none here did. This is actually NOT a deceiving counterfeit IMO. There ARE struck counterfeit trade dollars, including the rare 1876-CC DDR which ARE very deceiving. This isn't in that ball park at all! Once you understand the process of making cast counterfeit coins and are aware of the signs to look for coins like this will not pose a problem. If you can't distinguish a cast counterfeit trade dollar from a struck trade dollar...your in the wrong series IMO. Coin is counterfeit and this series is not one to try to get rich quick by cherrypicking IMO.
Greg Hansen, Melbourne, FL Click here for any current EBAY auctions Multiple "Circle of Trust" transactions over 14 years on forum
Duplicate post deleted.
Greg Hansen, Melbourne, FL Click here for any current EBAY auctions Multiple "Circle of Trust" transactions over 14 years on forum
Has to be one of the dumbest counterfeiters out there to list it with a low BIN. I thought those folks typically rely on people bidding up rare coins into the stratosphere. Or was it listed by a dealer who didn't know what they had? Strange situation the way it was sold too.
I did, strange coin. All the pick up points match so it is either a cast copy or fire damage. Chops are weird but the reed count lines are the same as a real one. cast copies just make transfer dies and use a striking process still I assume? In that case what are the chances of a similar reed count collar being used by forgers? If it was just a pure cast, there is no was it would have such sharp details.
I flip flop between fire damage (smells burnt and has black crud in places) and fake. I agree with Realon...err....Afford that the chances of a counterfiters grabbing a random 76-s DDO to use as a master are very very slim.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
.> @Crypto said:
xrf that puppy, a few diff spots.
send her to me, i know a few dealers that can do it.
.
Crypto Posts: 3
Mmmmm.
OP's coin is not a very good fake as mentioned by greghanson.
Transfer dies are not needed to make cast counterfeits. In fact using transfer dies involves more labor, much heavier duty equipment, and results in much poorer surfaces.
Sorry I can't get good enough images of some gold Indians I made in dental school (43 yrs ago) that are many times sharper than the OP's coin. At shows dealers will tell wife what a nice 5 Indian she has for a neckless.
Similar to the split mold used to make lead weights for fishing, dental impression material (one class are silicone impression materials used in industry and probably available on ebay) will make a very sharp impression to make resin or wax patterns to be used in the lost wax technique. Another advantage is one can modify the impression surface before making patterns.
If one has an old oven with cleaning cycle all the materials, casting machine, and torch can be purchased for under $500
In my other hobbies to make larger castings I use cheap plaster of paris. Even on coins you can get a very fine impression with watery mix and vibrator to reduce bubbles and flow onto surface.
Dental impression are elastic and don't damage a coin surface but plaster might etch coin (fine if slider generic coin).
BTW one can make a super light weight fake by gold plating a resin pattern made from same technique.
I'm sure that's correct for most manufacturing to have shrinkage but adjustments to technique can be made to compensate for shrinkage
Dental gold crowns have to be accurate otherwise they would not fit over the prep " stump" if any shrinkage has taken place.
In dental casting the issue of shrinkage is addressed by mold expansion by hydroscopic expansion (basically soaking in water) equal to the approx. 1.5% shrinkage of molten gold. This expansion results in a pattern cavity space that is larger than the original pattern.
Of course the result is never prefect but if anything the crown must be oversized since a crown will not go on if too tight.
The fit of a gold crown is why today you will still see dentists prefer using this "old fashion" type of crown on back teeth where cosmetics is not a concern.
Also for those who grind their teeth gold is softer (although alloyed to be harder than pure gold) and will wear better with teeth than porcelain which is harder than enamel.
Raw Trade Dollars and eBay: Disappointment will not be the exception.
Here's terrific thread on the subject:
https://cointalk.com/threads/how-do-you-spot-fake-trade-dollars-anyway.63695/
I had the opportunity to study this coin so here’s some additional thoughts and info.
Compared it to my own example which has the highest level of detail of any example of this variety I know of (AU details). The coins are a match from the standpoint of they shared the same dies (assuming they were both struck). As previously stated the reed count matched at 183. Other than the surfaces, there’s nothing obvious to say that it was cast. The coin sure appears to have been exposed to heat (both from appearance and smell) and I wonder if that’s what caused the disturbed surfaces.
With so few examples of this DDO variety out there (12 or 13 known) and all of them mid-AU details and lower, I’m still having a hard time understanding how a cast counterfeit could be produced. Sure, doesn’t mean I know of all the examples out there and it’s an exciting thought to consider there could be a mint state example out there that was used to create the mold. That just seems like a stretch.
The chopmarks are different than what I’m used to, but I see new/different looking chopmarks pretty often. I look at chopmarked coins every day and own a few hundred of them.
For what it’s worth the coin was submitted alongside my AU example (in its PCGS holder) to PCGS for comparison and the verdict was still counterfeit. In talking it over with PCGS, the primary reason they didn’t like it was actually the weight. I weighed it and as you can see below it’s a little under the 27.20g you’d expect. That’s 1.2% low, understandable to not trust it but I do wonder if the chopmarks could account for this amount of weight loss.
There are several great opinions on this thread. To the OP, the images of the coin on Ebay are terrible and all washed out. IMO, no one could have thought the coin was a fake from them based on the coin itself. The chops are another thing. In my experience, chops like that are very scarce. That was the first thing that caught my eye. Nevertheless, the coin looked genuine.
Now, the photo you posted after receiving the coin is much better. In MHO, there is a one in a thousand chance the coin is a cast. They don't cast deceptive coins anymore. The main problem with your coin is the raised pimples (one usual indication of a cast). These were not visible in the washed out photo but show up very well in the other photo. Note the group by the "F" in "OF." Corrosion virtually always goes into the surface. When corrosion products are found that are raised on a surface they generally do not take the shape of the pimples I've pointed out.
Just as an aside [forget you ever heard this], I learned that some old time professional authenticators named any of the extraneous metal seen on a coin (can occur on both genuine and C/F's) in places where it did not belong - like the middle of the fields - "EM." That covered all the raised metal except for die rust.
I don't know what the coin cost you but there are collectors such as myself who are lucky to purchase deceptive fakes. One thing we'll never know without seeing the fabric of the coin under a stereo microscope, was the coin a contemporary C/F? In that case it possibly was a casting. But remember this, the "micro-O" Morgan C/F's circulated at the turn of the century and they were definitely struck.
I really want to believe it's real, and I think we can explain the oddities away (surface and weight being off). The most convincing aspect to me though, that it's real, is the question of how it could have been created for such a rare variety. There's just a really really small chance that the counterfeiters got ahold of a mint state example to copy from. More likely, in my opinion, is that ALL examples of this variety are not authentic if this one isn't. (and to be clear, I DO NOT believe all examples are fake)
I'll check my notes tonight and report back on my AU example.
None of this, to my knowledge, has been carried out.
I'd put a value of around $2k on it, in a PCGS gen holder. Just a guess though.
Just because the weight is a little off is no reason to condemn the coin; however, chops on a coin do not remove enough metal to greatly affect the weight because chops push metal back into the coin.
The fellows at TPGS are pretty good. Unfortunately, I know of only one who uses a stereomicroscope to examine virtually every coin sent in. Other authenticators use a scope very occasionally to examine questionable pieces. That said, mistakes do occur and many times, the newest, deceptive fakes, escape a quick eyeball examination and get slabbed until they are finally detected.
We are looking at images here. PCGS had a genuine specimen to use as a comparison piece. That fact alone (besides the horrible surface of the coin) is all that is needed for me to side with their opinion.
If I were in this situation, I would send the genuine coin in the PCGS slab PLUS the questionable coin to ICG - attention Mike Fazzari. Call first and it is a sure thing he'll want to check it for free just to have a record of it one way or another. The old guy has been an authenticator at several TPGS since 1972. He just had an article published on new Trade $ varieties and has been studying these coins for decades.
What is a XRF and what would it tell us? Would it matter if TENNDAVE soaked it in acetone prior to submitting it the first time? I could be convinced to ship it for study. Also could bring to Baltimore Friday if anybody wanted a gander.
I have also considered saltwater damage opposed to heat. It reminds me somewhat of sea salvage coins.
For what it is worth I agree with afford on PCGS.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
The best place to find fakes is eBay .
That's a fact, and does eBay care?
.
Love this thread!
I've seen the coin in person. My initial reaction was genuine, but then when I looked closer I changed my mind. A couple of things bother me:
--The chop on Miss Liberty's arm appears to just sit there on her arm. It does not appear to be struck with force. It's hard to explain, but after seeing thousands and thousands of chops, the look of that chop is just not natural.
--The surfaces remind me of other cast counterfeits I've seen.
--The weight is too low. In fact, it is way too low. A Trade Dollar weighs 27.20 grams. I've seen genuine worn and chopmarked ones weighing 27.10. I don't think I have ever seen a genuine Trade Dollar below 27.0.
But I just can't get over the fact that this is a 76-S DDO. As others have said, there are maybe 12-13 known. The odds of a counterfeitter picking this coin to copy are astronomical.
Complete Set of Chopmarked Trade Dollars
Carson City Silver Dollars Complete 1870-1893http://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase.aspx?sc=2722"
This series was one of the very first to be counterfeited in the recent era. I believe fake trade dollars from Asian sources started appearing around 1998. The fakers have had nearly twenty years to perfect their product. Judging from the comments in this thread they may now have reached the point where they can fool even experts in the field. Think about what this means ... to say that it is not a positive development is an understatement. Personally, I wouldn't touch a raw Trade Dollar. I'm not experienced with them and have no confidence in my ability to spot the better quality fakes.
Actually, Trade Dollars were faked as soon as they appeared on the market. That's the purpose of the chop marks, to declare that the coin is good.
They have been counterfeited ever since. The really good fakes started appearing on the market around 2001-2002.
Complete Set of Chopmarked Trade Dollars
Carson City Silver Dollars Complete 1870-1893http://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase.aspx?sc=2722"
.
27.216
.097 tol
27.119 down
27.313 up
not much wiggle room.
actual weights from a large sampling would help. a few xrf of obv/rev would settle this. imo
perhaps specific grav test?
.
Trade Dollars by their very nature were supposed to be exacting weight wise.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Which is the reason the SF mint was scolded in this timeframe by Philadelphia for the quality of their coins. If I remember correctly, both weight and thickness were short. There was a letter to this effect, but I can't remember off-hand where I saw it.
See above post re. weight.
Also, there are scary good fakes that pass XRF. Specifically an 1873-CC was tested and "passed", the theory being the fake may have been created from actual melted trade dollars. The only way it was caught was the dies were previously unknown, sort of the like the micro o morgans. The coin was cracked out of an NNC holder.
The kind of thing that gives us all the willies.
this.
the micro O "family" has came in at 93-94% silver.
i've not heard of an exception, YET.
melting "junk" coins to make better dates is a tough one, no doubt.
.
you wanna see tight, check out the gold coins tolerance for these classics. just wow
i'll share one.
$2.5 1834-36
4.180g
.008 tol
4.188 up
4.172 down
899.225 au, 100.775 cu & ag,
mic drop. crickets....
.
Let me attempt to make a point as I'm going crazy reading some of these posts. I just spoke with a fairly knowledgeable professional authenticator at a major TPGS. I plan to confirm what he told me tomorrow when I speak to another professional authenticator at a different major service. THERE ARE NO DECEPTIVE CAST COUNTERFEITS of coins that were originally die struck! There have NOT been any DECEPTIVE cast counterfeits in over thirty years according to the authenticator with almost fifty years experience. The deceptive fakes entering the market are DIE STRUCK. Almost forty years ago the authenticators at two different services stopped weighing coins, counting edge reeds, and measuring them (sp. gr., thickness, diameter) because they found that any state-of-the-art counterfeit that they could not identify using just a stereo scope would pass all the tests! Counterfeiters were able to transfer even tiny lines of die polish from a genuine coin onto a fake as far back as 1974.
Examples of the best counterfeits made today have already been slabbed as genuine by every major TPGS until they were detected. They pass all the tests. The authenticator I spoke with told me that up until about five years ago, he could remove a coin from its flip, move it over to the scope (most of the time that's all he needed to know if it was genuine) and in about three seconds under the scope determine if his gut reaction was correct. Now he told me that he often needs to spend several minutes under the scope on some coins like Early dollars and Trade dollars to arrive at a determination. Are you starting to get the problem? A professional authenticator who has studied at least tens of thousands of coins for almost fifty years at a level of magnification NONE OF YOU USE is having a difficult time authenticating some coins! Now, bang 'em up, clean 'em, corrode them, chemically etch them and the real fun begins.
The Trade dollar in this thread is either genuine or counterfeit. One quality grading service has said it was bad and they had a genuine example to compare it to. Authentication does not get any easier than that. If you believe the grading service made an error, send the coin to Rick Montgomery (NGC) or Skip Fazzari (ICG) for another opinion. I'm betting that any other group of professionals who are given the questionable coin and the genuine example to compare will make short work of it. If they cannot, they don't deserve to be in the business!!!
Otherwise, this thread will go on, and, on , and....
PS The chances that a hand-held analyzer will settle this are slim to none