1883 Trade Dollar -- Looks real to me. Pictures are not to good.
HoledandCreative
Posts: 2,805 ✭✭✭✭✭
0
HoledandCreative
Posts: 2,805 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
I dunno...you would expect a proof to be well struck, but the rims don't have enough sharpness for a proof IMO.
Since this is a proof only date the diagnostics should be fairly well known (though not to me admittedly).
Just doesn't look right to me.
But I'm no expert on Trades.
The stars, headdress beads, hair and wheat sure look like a proof strike to me...
mbogoman
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/classic-issues-colonials-through-1964/zambezi-collection-trade-dollars/7345Asesabi Lutho
I vote not genuine.
If a trade dollar is raw ... just pass. They are coins that have been so extensively counterfeited that it isn't worth taking a chance on them.
I'll post the obverse, then have to get to work. Anyone have time to do the reverse comparison?
The date looks wrong to me. This is a proof-only issue, with strong mirrors. The surfaces don't look right. Why would it be holed? Liberty looks too skinny. Denticals don't look right.
Too many red flags just for the privilege of having a horribly damaged coin. Pass.
--Severian the Lame
Looks like she lost 30 1bs.
The first thing that stuck out to me is her arm, it looks much smaller than it should. When compared to the obverse of an authentic trade things just go south from there, pass pass pass!
I'm sticking to my initial assessment - I think its real. Remember, Trade Dollars were demonetized and not legal tender after their short run. That's why so many were converted into jewelry of some sort (lockets, opium boxes, etc.). Clearly this one was holed and shows signs of wear (pocket piece, keychain adornment, neck wear??) which probably explains the rounding off of the rims. It's likely been cleaned, too. The surfaces are not original, but that would be expected of a piece of jewelry. The strike is too sharp and clear on the devices - In my little world, I have never seen a fake struck so well.
mbogoman
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/classic-issues-colonials-through-1964/zambezi-collection-trade-dollars/7345Asesabi Lutho
The left side obverse denticles all curve upwards, even the ones at 9:00. That's pretty lousy mint QC which should be the same on all specimens. At least they got it right on the opposite side of the obverse. The other proof in this thread doesn't have the curved denticles.
Who would hole a real proof trade dollar. Now a fake one, that wouldn't be an issue at all. The coin is pretty sharp. Yet there are areas you would think it should be even sharper.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm leaning toward it being genuine although the surfaces look a little off
My YouTube Channel
The denticles look off on the coin. On the reverse the bottom dentiles change from longish to short and rounded on the right side of photo. The denticles start to change in size to the right of the E in fine. I am in the too many red flags camp: Pass.
Nah. Transfer die copy.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.americanlegacycoins.com
Fake. No inner circle on the obverse above the denticles. The reverse is especially bad.
Free Trial
Right leg fabric folds missing. Wheat straws missing. I'm in the not real crowd..
bo
Good catch on the fabrics folds.
Why take a chance?
As an aside, the proof only years examples can be of really, really poor quality. Like, really bad.
I've seen ones where the stars were not fully struck.
I am leaning towards nice fake because of the denticles sloping near star 1. The story of the hole also does not make sense - most holes were made to hang on a necklace or something, it is too big to be on a bracelet. Also I would expect the fields to more reflective (maybe they are in hand), but it looks like some fake wear on the fields without wearing the high points in devices or the rim.
As an aside, if this was in a PCGS AU details hole slab, what kind of value would you put it at?
Can't really tell enough from the photos to be sure, but I think it has a good chance of being genuine. The "curved dentils " may be an optical aberration , perhaps H&C could comment on how they look in hand? As I've said many times, a good closeup photo of the edge reeding can be almost definitive.
My comment on QC wasn't really about the strike. But, the fact that whoever made the die must have been drunk when "creating" the left obverse denticles. This more of a design "flaw" than a striking issue since the denticles aren't even perpendicular to where they attach to the rim. More than likely a design flaw by the counterfeiter. And other areas of the coin are not well struck as has been mentioned (including the "ocean's waves"). It's not the most obvious fake for what we normally see coming out of China. They got the date pretty good.
A PCGS 1883 trade $ graded "genuine" (no numerical grade) sold on HA in 2014 for about $1300.
An unc details, cleaned one just sold in October for $1350.
That unc details coin is close in surface and strike from what I can tell. With a hole, if it's genuine, if it grades?
There's got to be someone who' d want it at $500. But that wouldn't be me.
--Severian the Lame
To find out if it's real or not I would send it in to PCGS for grading. If it comes back fake as was paid for by Paypal I would get my money back from the ebay seller. As far as who would put a hole in it. Lots of people put holes in lots of coins at a time when the coin wasn't worth that much or even considered a collector coin. Lots of proofs entered circulation a hundred years ago.
Lafayette Grading Set
Thanks for all of the comments. I will get it x-rayed this Sunday at a local show as long as the gun shows up. I bought on eBay from a reputable dealer. To check the denticles, look it up, he has a very nice picture of it, I don't know if right to post his picture here. He used perfect lighting to get the picture he wanted. I need to keep it in its original holder for now.
What is the point of "having it x-rayed"? The coin needs to be certified as "genuine" by a major TPG to have any credibility. Also, why was the hole drilled in such an odd location?
Here is the seller's pic, rearranged horizontally and with seller's ID removed:
mbogoman
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/classic-issues-colonials-through-1964/zambezi-collection-trade-dollars/7345Asesabi Lutho
The auction pics do not show what I was worried about so probably just a digital artifact.
I am not sure how you could get an auction win, certified and returned all within the 30 day return option. I suppose they might honor the return for a year or longer if PCGS said questionable authenticity.
The numbers in the date alone look off without glancing anywhere else on the coin,
get a graded trade dollar, too many good fakes of this type of coin around
coins for sale at link below
READ BEFORE BUYING
https://photos.google.com/album/AF1QipO5yy6VpG2KGPat31__KFjSDLI8fMuJ2djPpjgW
The digits in the date looked wrong to me as soon as I saw it.
Thank you!
I look, and do not see the differences a few of you see in the date. I do see what appears to be doubled or shifted numerals at the top of date in the higher grade one. If all 1883 proofs have the doubling, I have probably bought a bad coin. Could one of you gurus merge the 2 coins to show me the differences, besides the doubling? TIA.
Funny thing, (and I am certainly no expert on Trade dollars) is the date actually looked good to me...
My YouTube Channel
I compare with some on Coinfacts and it looks good to me
I couldn't find anything obvious in the date either, not even the elevation between digits. Looks the same as the real proof shown earlier in the thread. Hmm, the denticles on the seller's pics don't look as strange as the OP's. ???
I think it's real.
The OP takes bad pictures.