Continuing on a Theme- Struck Counterfeit 1793 "S-5" Large Cent
burfle23
Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭✭✭
This "variety" was included in my previous article on damaged and repaired source coins and the counterfeits struck from the resulting dies. The significance of the date and the higher grade details caused quite a stir when it was "discovered" among experts- both collectors, dealers and TPG's.
After posting results on our FB page "Dark Side" and the discussions that ensued I found myself the bearer of bad news to a fellow EAC member and friend that the example he had recently purchased for over $14K (in a TPG slab) was one of the fakes as well. The silver lining for him was the TPG's guarantee of authenticity! I then had the opportunity to review it at the next EAC Convention and it became more apparent "in-hand" what it actually is...
My research article documenting this one for those interested can be found at Coin Week:
Comments
You are going to be a very popular asset to this forum.
Thanks Insider2.
The trait of struck counterfeits having repeating marks has been known for a long time, but AFAIK this is the first time that so many of the source coins have been found and traced through several sales and submittals. Also the first time I have heard of repaired coins being used as the source.
The only other occurrence of finding the source coin that I know about was (IIRC) a $50 Gold slug linked to the Ford sales.
I was part of a C4 research meeting on Nov 10th at the Baltimore Whitman Coin Expo with a group of Colonial Coin Experts reviewing two known examples of 1723 D:G REX Silver Hibernias “in-hand”, as well as the images from this research.
This story began with excerpts from a 1979 article written by Eric P. Newman for the Numismatist; in that article Newman documents and discloses several of what he considered to be deceptive cast counterfeit Colonial “coins”. One of the 8 varieties discussed there, a copper D:G REX Hibernia, appears to be the source of the two silver examples that were the focus of the Nov C4 meeting; provenance indicates the copper example was from a 1978 auction, and reported as “withdrawn”.
After nearly a 2 hour discussion and review the group unanimously agreed the two silver examples are struck counterfeits, an interesting outcome and consensus considering the group in attendance (there were 8 participants including the owners).
To your point, the matching marks and “die clip” told a large part of the tale, and these two way preceded the latest die struck deceptive varieties I have been chasing lately with my group, but they came to light due in part to the caution this particular TPG is taking in regards to the concerns for these latest ones and reviewed the images of the second silver Hibernia example with us when it was submitted for authentication.
I think one of the main differences with these latest struck fakes is the number that have been "authenticated" by collectors, dealers and TPG's alike...
When I was at ANACS in the early 1980's we got in a 1796 quarter in Good-4 with a scratch in the right obverse field. I was suspicious of it but could not prove it wrong, and finally decided that nobody would counterfeit a Good coin, foolishly ignoring the fact that is was still worth $1000 or so.
A year or two later I was at a convention when Lee Minshull handed me the certified coin and certificate and another identical coin. I said "Oops" and asked to borrow them, which he graciously agreed to. They were of course both bad, and when I looked through auction catalogues in the ANA Library found that every major auction house had sold at least one of them in the preceding five or so years.
I published the coin in the ANACS column as an oopsie, and we got in two more from members that saw the column. They were of course bad. Then I got in a coin from a collector along with a letter that said that he had bought the coin a few years earlier, and that the dealer had seen the write-up, remembered the coin and contacted the collector about it. The dealer had told the collector to send it to us, and if we said it was bad he would refund the price of the coin and the fees.
Turned out to be the genuine host coin. The "scratch" in the field was a lamination that you could see under on the genuine coin. We certified it, and wrote the collector a very detailed letter on ANACS letterhead explaining that this coin, ANACS certificate such-and-such, was the genuine coin from which the counterfeit coin published on so-and-so was made from.
I contacted the dealer and tried to trace the coin back to see if we could trace the counterfeiter, but when he checked his records it turned out that it had been purchased for cash at a coin show.
TD
Very informative, thank you for the information and your contributions.... Cheers, RickO
More than informative. This sort of thing is absolutely scary.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
Going back five decades, I have purchased many circulated raw large cents and other U.S. copper-nickel-silver coins. I am not sure that this would be a good idea for collectors to do this in the future.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
Yeah it is! I agree totally. When stuff slips by it shows just how good the fakers are.
...................and they're getting better!.
Pete
Responsed with a very detailed letter ...
This is the kind of service that one could wish to have a certification company.
Please clarify this point.
Is the "pre-source" coin genuine?
It is believed to be; after repairs it was determined to be genuine but with "altered surfaces" and not slabbed as a result by that TPG.
Looking at the the photos in the op, the first two, which are genuine and fake look okay. The fake one is scary. The last one, with the orange color, is like the junk I have become used to seeing from the Chinese garbage mint.
I'm glad I have collected coins when I did. The counterfeit problems are much worse now, and the TPGs really need to spend more than 6 seconds on a coin these days.
I tried.
Incredible sleuthing - well done, and thank you for posting!
I enjoy the research and hope the posts are useful!
One of the research tools I am investigating with this "variety" is die rotation; with limited sample size I have seen 2 fakes with the reverse apparently rotated counterclockwise (both the same) relative to many genuine examples I have reviewed.
An update: the TPG of the holdered example is having images taken of the "coin" and the edge- maybe more to come!
New images of the now "un-slabbed" example; I wonder how many would have considered this a counterfeit from these images?
IMO, all the fakers will do is adjust the dies to eliminate the rotation and be more careful setting the dies in the press for the next fake they start striking.
Agreed; still working on the group known to be "out there". This will only get worse in my opinion if they get a numismatist on staff and quit making the discernible errors.
Since the writing of the research article on this "variety" there has been another discovered in a TPG slab in a California Dealer's inventory...