1889-CC Morgan - Real or Fake?

C0inCollect0r

Hi folks,

This 1889-CC looks somewhat weird to me and I suspect it is counterfeit. It has been abrasively polished which is also perhaps throwing me off. So, I'm curious to hear your opinions - Real or fake?

LindeDad

Don't know what it is but UGLY.

Coin Finder

looks ok to me but polished...

mbogoman

Fakeroo. I see rough sandy obverse surfaces (especially Liberty's hair and cap) , the dentils on both obverse and reverse are mis-shapen and have an extra line running through them, the details are soft, especially the letters on the reverse; possibly raised bumps between the date and bottom of neck and below "M" of UNUM, etc.

AUandAG

I'd say fake. Big lump of metal in front of lips to right of 6th star. Dentils have a weird line through them. It is polished to death and that might have been intentionally done to hide the casting details.

bob

KollectorKing

F abricate
A cross
K not
E nmass

BillJones

Yes that chunk of metal in front of Ms. Liberty's lips is not good. The reason why these guys polish their product is to remove defects like that chunk of metal. That one was too big.

ricko

Definitely a fake... several flags as enumerated above... cast reproduction and polished to hide the casting features...Cheers, RickO

silverpop

ugly and fake

metalmeister

Fake.

mannie gray

Fake, as stated above by several posters...but I could see how this coin might fool a new collector.
To us old guys, it just screams "fake" after about 1/2 sec of viewing.....that happens when you have been doing this for more than 40 years though. (At least it should....lol)

Insider2

OK, so we all agree it is probably bad. Does anyone think it may be a cup & saucer alteration where two genuine coins are put together? I don't like the cut into the denticals that goes around the circumference. That is a stretch as there is one on both sides and it is probably just light on the crushed denticals.

mbogoman

@Insider2 said:
OK, so we all agree it is probably bad. Does anyone think it may be a cup & saucer alteration where two genuine coins are put together? I don't like the cut into the denticals that goes around the circumference. That is a stretch as there is one on both sides and it is probably just light on the crushed denticals.

No. There is no probably. There are too many other things wrong with it on both sides. Why would a counterfeiter put two fake coins together?

Coin Finder

I have been offered a few counterfeits over the years, have 5 on my desk that we given to me of mostly dollars. Never been stung by one. I will say that if a coin is gouged and water-damaged then polished it could account for some of this. a polished gouge mark could become a lump. The rim denticals are an issue. But the thing is, It doesn't matter to me anyway, I would never buy a coin like this ever...So it could be counterfeit all day and half the night and its a pass..

I'll admit I was wrong on my initial statement that it looks ok..

Insider2

@mbogoman said:

@Insider2 said:
OK, so we all agree it is probably bad. Does anyone think it may be a cup & saucer alteration where two genuine coins are put together? I don't like the cut into the denticals that goes around the circumference. That is a stretch as there is one on both sides and it is probably just light on the crushed denticals.

No. There is no probably. There are too many other things wrong with it on both sides. Why would a counterfeiter put two fake coins together?

I don't have the coin in hand. I don't give an opinion that a coin is counterfeit or altered using just an image unless I am 100% positive. I've seen too many genuine coins that have been damaged, heated, harshly cleaned, (this coin is polished) that look counterfeit even in hand. That's why I posted PROBABLY.

As for your second question, IF the coin is not a struck counterfeit, there PROBABLY is a reason to put an 1889 obverse with a CC reverse. You'll probably agree?

mbogoman

@Insider2 said:

@mbogoman said:

@Insider2 said:
OK, so we all agree it is probably bad. Does anyone think it may be a cup & saucer alteration where two genuine coins are put together? I don't like the cut into the denticals that goes around the circumference. That is a stretch as there is one on both sides and it is probably just light on the crushed denticals.

No. There is no probably. There are too many other things wrong with it on both sides. Why would a counterfeiter put two fake coins together?

I don't have the coin in hand. I don't give an opinion that a coin is counterfeit or altered using just an image unless I am 100% positive. I've seen too many genuine coins that have been damaged, heated, harshly cleaned, (this coin is polished) that look counterfeit even in hand. That's why I posted PROBABLY.

As for your second question, IF the coin is not a struck counterfeit, there PROBABLY is a reason to put an 1889 obverse with a CC reverse. You'll probably agree?

And therein lies the difference: I am 100% positive that the coin pictured is a fake.

Insider2

@mbogoman said:

@Insider2 said:

@mbogoman said:

@Insider2 said:
OK, so we all agree it is probably bad. Does anyone think it may be a cup & saucer alteration where two genuine coins are put together? I don't like the cut into the denticals that goes around the circumference. That is a stretch as there is one on both sides and it is probably just light on the crushed denticals.

No. There is no probably. There are too many other things wrong with it on both sides. Why would a counterfeiter put two fake coins together?

I don't have the coin in hand. I don't give an opinion that a coin is counterfeit or altered using just an image unless I am 100% positive. I've seen too many genuine coins that have been damaged, heated, harshly cleaned, (this coin is polished) that look counterfeit even in hand. That's why I posted PROBABLY.

As for your second question, IF the coin is not a struck counterfeit, there PROBABLY is a reason to put an 1889 obverse with a CC reverse. You'll probably agree?

And therein lies the difference: I am 100% positive that the coin pictured is a fake.

Congratulations! As I posted: It "probably" is.

AUandAG

Compare this coin to the VAM5 as the VAM5 is the only dropped C reverse. The obverse date placement is wrong and therefore the die pairing does not exist....clearly a fake without looking at anything else.

kaz

that metal blob in the left obv field is often seen on fakes of this date, probably a well used die. And as pointed outthe obv. devices are very porous looking. So technically speaking a fake. AU&AG clinches it with his VAM analysis. more than one way to skin this particular cat.

ianrussell

That polished look is fairly common on fakes. The surfaces will feel different as well.

MsMorrisine

Liberty shallow
Fold inside ear pointed
Subtle differences in right wing feathers
Berries above fletching off

The point in the ear is enough for me

Insider2

@MsMorrisine said:
Liberty shallow
Fold inside ear pointed
Subtle differences in right wing feathers
Berries above fletching off

The point in the ear is enough for me

I see the design is mushy and granular but I thought the point in the ear was part of the design and therefore not diagnostic of anything.

MsMorrisine

it's more rounded