Another obsolete counterfeit test.

Berny

Here are two notes from the Mechanics and Farmers Bank of Albany, NY. Although they certainly have the same plate letter, S, they are obviously different.



So is one a counterfeit, both genuine, or both counterfeit?

gsalex

It looks like the lower one was printed earlier. It has no printer indicated. The upper one does have a printer's insignia in the lower left and was probably a re-engraved (and improved) version of the original design. They are definitely two different plates. Both seem genuine to me, but the test would be to confirm the presidents' signatures for the years in question.

An S plate number seems quite unusual. Obsolete notes were typically printed in sheets of four. If that's the case here, this would have to be from the fifth plate produced -- or one extremely large plate of at least 20 notes. I've never come across such a thing, so I wonder if the S indicates something else.

HistoryMajor

The second is in such poor condition that it is hard to make out the detail. My uneducated guess is that both are genuine

dtreter

I think the bottom note is counterfeit. There is too much difference in the leaves and branches between the notes. The bottom note looks crudely engraved and the portrait is bad too. I think the upper is genuine but I would like to compare it with another known genuine note to be sure.

sellitstore

I'll let others answer first.

I will comment on the plate letter. Not unusual on early notes to use all the letters, two letters or a letter and number combination. These were printed 4 to a sheet.

DanCong

the lettering on the bottom note is uneven and cruder, the engraving as well. Less fine detail and heavy handed shading. So bottom looks like a copy, and they copied the plate letter "S" as well.

Andres

Originally posted by: dtreter
I think the bottom note is counterfeit. There is too much difference in the leaves and branches between the notes. The bottom note looks crudely engraved and the portrait is bad too. I think the upper is genuine but I would like to compare it with another known genuine note to be sure.

Berny

The relevant Haxby listing:

sellitstore

And the Haxby note may be different than either of the two examples shown by Berny.

My collection spreadsheet shows that I have four different $3s from this bank, two C24s and two C28s.

Yes, the bottom note is counterfeit. This note is from the same plate as one of my counterfeits, acquired from Claud Murphy in 1993. The engraving is quite crude and this should be easily identified as a counterfeit.

But what about the top note? That one is much more of a challenge.

According to Haxby, the genuine note is supposed to have both the Whiting and Lemet imprints, but since that info is in parenthesis, this info is presumed and not confirmed. None of the three notes have both imprints, so is the top Berny note counterfeit or genuine?

Another comment about the two imprints. One is the engraver, the other the printer. This only happens on some earlier obsoletes. By the mid 1820s, engraving and printing was nearly always done by the same firm, probably for security reasons. Two imprints on post 1857 notes occurs more frequently for different reasons-the acqustion by American Bank Note Company.

Edited to add: I just noticed that the 1848 and 1850 dated $5s that I posted below also have two imprints-one for the engraver, Fairman, Draper, Underwood and another "Printed by J.E. Gavit & Co. Albany", as FDU didn't exist anymore by 1848-50.

telephoto1

My take, both real, same plate letter but from two different printers. Top note is Lemet, bottom note Whiting. I read Haxby's listing as stating that Lemet and Whiting were separate entities. Am I wrong?

sellitstore

Lemet was the printer, Whiting the engraver.

Most obsolete notes are engraved and printed by a single company.

sellitstore

Here are my examples of the same two notes:

sellitstore

Here are five more later issues from the same bank. Genuine or counterfeit?

Berny

The $1: Most probably NY-75-G100a-SENC. I see the ABNCo monogram but not the imprints of FDU and Gavit. Probably replaced by the new pledge at the bottom. The face of Washington looks good. The Olcott’s really ran that bank. You outbid me on this one on 2/9/14.



The first pair of $5’s: Hard to tell due to the condition of the notes and low-resolution scans. The counters don’t look very symmetric, especially the C plate-note. The A plate is an April Fool’s note. The C-plate “FIVE” looks very bad. Looks like both (Plate A and C) are C94 and not G94.



The bottom pair of $5’s: The bottom one (1862) with the ABNCo monogram is NY-75-G116a while the earlier one is G116-SENC.



The bottom 3 genuine notes have the same handwritten signature of “T Olcott” (pres) and the large cashier’s “Olcott.” The “Tho W Olcott” signature on the 1850 $5 counterfeit is very similar to the one on the $1 counterfeit posted at the top of this thread, only 31 years later.



Regarding your statement: “And the Haxby note may be different than either of the two examples shown by Berny.” Why? To me, the first note that I posted (and one of yours) sure looks like the Haxby counterfeit note (C24).





Bottom line: Given the poor condition/scans of most of these kinds of notes, the help given by the Haxby books is crucial. Remember that not only did he see a huge number of notes, he also extensively used counterfeit detectors to arrive at much of the information that he presents, even though some was not personally verified via actual notes seen. Unfortunately Bowers’ new tomes don’t seem to provide a solution. Many pretty colored pictures but little information added regarding this subject. Hopefully the SPMC online archives will fill the holes. It is up to us to help establish more complete information than Haxby could in 1988.

sellitstore

Yes, I think that the Haxby plate note is likely the same as both of our better engraved examples which look like they could be genuine. The photo quality in Haxby just isn't sharp enough to tell with certainty. At first my post stated that it was a third type and this was mistaken and corrected, as I thought that I had noticed a third imprint variety.

We are in 100% agreement on the last five notes that I posted, which is reassuring and what I would hope for.

I'll just add one observation that hasn't been mentioned. Note the difference between the last two uprights of the t's in Olcott's signature. The counterfeits are nearly always parallel, while on his genuine signature, they aren't.

Would you like to see other early counterfeits on this bank? I also have five different genuine fractional denominations, all unlisted in Haxby.

Berny

Originally posted by: sellitstore

...

Would you like to see other early counterfeits on this bank? I also have five different genuine fractional denominations, all unlisted in Haxby.

Bring them on.

sellitstore

Actually, there's six fractionals. These are genuine but the others are counterfeits. Note the parallel t's on the Olcott signed $1, $2 and $3. Engraving quality varies from OK to horrible but none are as good as they should be if genuine.