Authentic or Counterfeit Gold Commems?
Windycity
Posts: 3,497 ✭✭✭✭✭
Two coins for your review... a Sesquicentennial $2.50 and a McKinley Louisiana Purchase $1. Both test positive as gold but I question the surfaces of the Sesquicentennial and wonder about the rims on the McKinley. Here are images of both and welcome opinions. My guess is the McKinley is authentic but not the sesquicentennial.
<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.mullencoins.com">Mullen Coins Website - Windycity Coin website
0
Comments
They have a certain funkiness to them that would have me concerned with authenticity.
Look fake to me.
I couldn't tell you, but the McKinley has been cleaned and the rims look strange to me. Independence Hall's entrance appears bolder than any I've seen.
I have a complete 11 piece set of the $1 and $2 1/2 classic commemorative gold coins all of which are slabbed. That's the way the real ones look and I see nothing in your pics that would indicated that they are anything but authentic.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I am 100% sure that the Sesquicentennial $2.50 is a counterfeit. That coin was stuck in low relief, but it was not as mushy as the item pictured here. Also the surfaces have bubbles all over them. It's a cast of some kind.
I am 99% sure that the 1903 McKinley is too. The McKinley appears to have been formerly mounted which can add some problems to the authentication issue. These coins were issued mounted in jewelry, spoons and such. Therefore there probably are some pieces that have been removed from those devices. Mounting and mount removal results in damage. The raised line through the "P" in "EXPOSITION" seals the issue for me. That should not be there on a genuine piece.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Those "bubbles" appear to be tiny tick marks which is very typical for this issue. Also, this issue typically has the mushy look that this coin exhibits. As far as the rim on the 1903 goes, it is possible that it was mounted in a bezel or similar holder. Suggest taking these coins to a major coin show where ANACS is set up to get their opinion.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@BillJones said: "I am 100% sure that the Sesquicentennial $2.50 is a counterfeit. That coin was stuck in low relief, but it was not as mushy as the item pictured here. Also the surfaces have bubbles all over them. It's a cast of some kind."
Bill, If someone actually has any cast counterfeit Commemorative gold they have an extreme rarity! From what I know/have heard, 99.999% of the counterfeits were die struck; and if that .001% even exists, it would not fool you or I.
While the color of the coin is slightly "off," it appears to be genuine. If there is a large depression between the "ER," it is a fake.
Bill added: "I am 99% sure that the 1903 McKinley is too. The McKinley appears to have been formerly mounted which can add some problems to the authentication issue. These coins were issued mounted in jewelry, spoons and such. Therefore there probably are some pieces that have been removed from those devices. Mounting and mount removal results in damage. The raised line through the "P" in "EXPOSITION" seals the issue for me. That should not be there on a genuine piece. "
The "deal sealer" is a scratch or "strike thru." The coin is a 100% die struck and damaged genuine coin.
Both look ok to me. The $2 1/2 coins are very low relief/detailed coins
I don't recall seeing a Sesqui $2.50 counterfeit that had visible reverse rays above Independence Hall.
@RogerB said: "I don't recall seeing a Sesqui $2.50 counterfeit that had visible reverse rays above Independence Hall."
That's a great point. They are vestigial (not exactly the correct word
...as you can "just" see them when the coin is tipped in the light) on the counterfeits.
I can't tell for sure, but they look off to me.
CCAC Representative of the General Public
Columnist for The Numismatist
2021 Young Numismatist of the Year
im not sure about the top one.
Okay here are two genuine pieces. I'm still 100% sure that the Sesquicentennial is no good.
@BillJones
I hope you are correct about the Sesqui. I'm still waiting to hear about the depression I think I see between the letters. The color is off but it may be just the photo. That lump above "1776" on the OP's coin is found on one genuine die and the counterfeit that copied it.
One authenticator recommends florescent light for authentication. We could possibly solve this if we had an image using that light. The hits would not look like bubbles or pimples.
Here are a couple closeup photos of the depression between the E and R of AMERICA on the obverse and a marker on the reverse in the S of DOLLARS. As mentioned in the original post, I suspect this coin is counterfeit.
Interesting discussion.... I am not qualified to offer an opinion, however, this is very educational.... Please advise us if you get authentication from a TPG... Cheers, RickO
The coin is a well known STRUCK COUNTERFEIT. Bravo @BillJones and the OP.
The Sesquicentennial piece looks a lot like the counterfeit that was pictured in the Breen and Swiatek commemorative coin book that was published many years ago.
Correct. That's the counterfeit shown on pp#225. It was considered to be a crude attempt at a counterfeit by professional authenticators many years before that book was published. It was not a "new" discovery as stated in the book.