Rather than read what the ideal is, you might want to weigh some actual coins. Back in the 1970's we did just that with a large group of gold coins The result was a stretched out bell curve - very narrow at both ends and rising higher to the middle (the official government weight). Take a guess where the counterfeits grouped and where many of the genuine coins resided. No noise, no crickets, just complete silence.
For what it's worth, my AU example of this variety weighs 27.18g.
Fun fact, I've weighed a few dozen trade dollars and the only examples I've measured that were over 27.20g were from Philadelphia. Most from SF and CC were between 27.20 down to 27, with lower grade examples weighing less.
I am glad to see this thread resurrected again as there have been some interesting information added. I am also glad to see some of the original experts in this series posting again.
I agree... very interesting thread.... and what really amazes me, is that there seems to be no definitive proof or agreement reached even after all this time. PCGS is certainly an authority... though not at all infallible. I would think that given the interest in this 'coin', a small group of experts could be convened with the proper resources and put this issue to rest - finally and authoritatively. Cheers, RickO
@LanceNewmanOCC posted this tolerance for Trade dollars: .097
I have a printed sheet of specifications published 6-1-76 from the U.S. government that lists the weights, fineness, and tolerances for the denominations of all our coins. This sheet was given out in by Charles Hoskins at a counterfeit detection class at the ANA Summer Seminar. I was there. The weight given by the government for these coins was 27.216 as Lance posted; however the column where the tolerance should have been was EMPTY. Pardon my ignorance but please let me know the source where the .097 grams tolerance came from.
Additionally:
Lance posted this for $2 1/2 gold dated 1834 - 1836: While the weight is identical in the government data, the tolerance does not match. My reference (see above) quotes a tolerance of .016 grams for these coins.
@afford said:
Experts can differentiate counterfeits from real but when the surfaces are impaired where the original texture of the coin is gone then the difficulty readily appears. If you take any coin and remove the original surfaces via cleaning, a chemical, or other damage such as heat from a fire etc you will have a hard time determining if it is real. This is such an example, every other time a counterfeit is presented the knowledgeable collectors as well as PCGS determine its authenticity pretty darn quickly. These are the exceptions that you are seeing.
I think this sums it up pretty well for the example at hand.
I've been holding back to some degree, but here's where I land on this one:
1. I think it's a genuine, authentic US Trade Dollar
2. I think PCGS did the right thing
Are 1 and 2 mutually exclusive? I don't think so. For reasons already stated above, I just don't see any possibility that someone could fake this specific coin even if they wanted to. At the same time, I'd be surprised if PCGS ever authenticated such a coin, with questionable surfaces and being underweight.
@Crypto said:
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.
@OriginalDan said: @afford said:
Experts can differentiate counterfeits from real but when the surfaces are impaired where the original texture of the coin is gone then the difficulty readily appears. If you take any coin and remove the original surfaces via cleaning, a chemical, or other damage such as heat from a fire etc you will have a hard time determining if it is real. This is such an example, every other time a counterfeit is presented the knowledgeable collectors as well as PCGS determine its authenticity pretty darn quickly. These are the exceptions that you are seeing.
I think this sums it up pretty well for the example at hand.
Both Crypto and I agree with Realone? What is this world coming too!? Group hug anyone?
i have 2, both match. ive not verified them, at all.
pro-redbook 1st edition and Counterfeit Detection: A reprint from the numismatist vol II, 1998 published by the ana colorado springs.
i do see numerous columns blank for various tolerances.
i have bible study here shortly so i cannot go any further til this evening. also have some errands to run afterwards.
Have a good class! Thanks for the reply. The pages in the ANA reprint are similar to/have the same font as the 1976 sheet used as a handout in class. Even the information at the bottom of the page matches. However, there are several changes made in the numbers given on that sheet. Is it an update by the government? Looks like it may be but the date of the revision is not given. The only thing I can say for sure this info was printed after the 1976 revision and quite possibly by the government.
If that is the case, I find it hard to believe the tolerances would have changed that much. Guess this may be a typical example of our government. Still, one of these sources is correct. Which one?
One thing for sure, if you weigh the actual BU coins you'll probably find the tolerance much wider than the official government number in which case - both sources are incorrect!
Good to see this thread resurrected, and pleasantly surprised to see Special Guest Appearances by some seldom scene TD specialists... Has anyone measured the diameter and thickness of the coin in question to see how they compare with genuine trade dollars?
@Crypto said:
I am slightly suspicious of the 75s no periord as a real coin. I haven't held one though
What dates of Trade Dollars are known w/o a period after "Fine?"
There are several. From what I can recall, among the San Francisco mintages alone, the 1874-S Large S, the supposed 1875-S (I haven't seen one in hand, so I cannot confirm), the 1876-S Type 1/1, and multiple varieties of the 1877-S all have examples that lack periods, though the feature is not nearly as common on examples from Philadelphia or Carson City.
The attached image is of one of the rarer 1877-S No Periods varieties, the 'Blunt R'.
I never paid much attention to the periods. I knew '74-S and '76'S did not have them. Also, missing on '73 and '74 patterns as I recall. Makes sense to me that a genuine '75 no period exists.
Comments
As for weight tolerance:
$2.5 1834-36
4.180g
.008 tol
4.188 up
4.172 down
899.225 au, 100.775 cu & ag,
mic drop. crickets.... NOPE, LOTS OF NOISE.
Rather than read what the ideal is, you might want to weigh some actual coins. Back in the 1970's we did just that with a large group of gold coins The result was a stretched out bell curve - very narrow at both ends and rising higher to the middle (the official government weight). Take a guess where the counterfeits grouped and where many of the genuine coins resided. No noise, no crickets, just complete silence.
For what it's worth, my AU example of this variety weighs 27.18g.
Fun fact, I've weighed a few dozen trade dollars and the only examples I've measured that were over 27.20g were from Philadelphia. Most from SF and CC were between 27.20 down to 27, with lower grade examples weighing less.
I am glad to see this thread resurrected again as there have been some interesting information added. I am also glad to see some of the original experts in this series posting again.
I agree... very interesting thread.... and what really amazes me, is that there seems to be no definitive proof or agreement reached even after all this time. PCGS is certainly an authority... though not at all infallible. I would think that given the interest in this 'coin', a small group of experts could be convened with the proper resources and put this issue to rest - finally and authoritatively. Cheers, RickO
@LanceNewmanOCC posted this tolerance for Trade dollars: .097
I have a printed sheet of specifications published 6-1-76 from the U.S. government that lists the weights, fineness, and tolerances for the denominations of all our coins. This sheet was given out in by Charles Hoskins at a counterfeit detection class at the ANA Summer Seminar. I was there. The weight given by the government for these coins was 27.216 as Lance posted; however the column where the tolerance should have been was EMPTY. Pardon my ignorance but please let me know the source where the .097 grams tolerance came from.
Additionally:
Lance posted this for $2 1/2 gold dated 1834 - 1836: While the weight is identical in the government data, the tolerance does not match. My reference (see above) quotes a tolerance of .016 grams for these coins.
$2.5 1834-36
4.180g
.008 tol.
ONE OF OUR SOURCES IS INCORRECT!
i have 2, both match. ive not verified them, at all.
pro-redbook 1st edition and Counterfeit Detection: A reprint from the numismatist vol II, 1998 published by the ana colorado springs.
i do see numerous columns blank for various tolerances.
.
I think this sums it up pretty well for the example at hand.
I've been holding back to some degree, but here's where I land on this one:
1. I think it's a genuine, authentic US Trade Dollar
2. I think PCGS did the right thing
Are 1 and 2 mutually exclusive? I don't think so. For reasons already stated above, I just don't see any possibility that someone could fake this specific coin even if they wanted to. At the same time, I'd be surprised if PCGS ever authenticated such a coin, with questionable surfaces and being underweight.
Both Crypto and I agree with Realone? What is this world coming too!? Group hug anyone?
Have a good class! Thanks for the reply. The pages in the ANA reprint are similar to/have the same font as the 1976 sheet used as a handout in class. Even the information at the bottom of the page matches. However, there are several changes made in the numbers given on that sheet. Is it an update by the government? Looks like it may be but the date of the revision is not given. The only thing I can say for sure this info was printed after the 1976 revision and quite possibly by the government.
If that is the case, I find it hard to believe the tolerances would have changed that much. Guess this may be a typical example of our government. Still, one of these sources is correct. Which one?
One thing for sure, if you weigh the actual BU coins you'll probably find the tolerance much wider than the official government number in which case - both sources are incorrect!
Good thread...as mentioned by another poster things like this are why I am always leery of wading into the series a bit deeper.
K
I am slightly suspicious of the 75s no periord as a real coin. I haven't held one though
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
What dates of Trade Dollars are known w/o a period after "Fine?"
.
Good to see this thread resurrected, and pleasantly surprised to see Special Guest Appearances by some seldom scene TD specialists... Has anyone measured the diameter and thickness of the coin in question to see how they compare with genuine trade dollars?
There are several. From what I can recall, among the San Francisco mintages alone, the 1874-S Large S, the supposed 1875-S (I haven't seen one in hand, so I cannot confirm), the 1876-S Type 1/1, and multiple varieties of the 1877-S all have examples that lack periods, though the feature is not nearly as common on examples from Philadelphia or Carson City.
The attached image is of one of the rarer 1877-S No Periods varieties, the 'Blunt R'.
I never paid much attention to the periods. I knew '74-S and '76'S did not have them. Also, missing on '73 and '74 patterns as I recall. Makes sense to me that a genuine '75 no period exists.
Not confined to S mint coins. Don't forget the 76p broken letter Rev
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
Welcome back to The online numismatic nut house Crypto!
Counterfeit? Crack it out and resubmit!