Options
Commemorative counterfeit
ldhair
Posts: 7,446 ✭✭✭✭✭
I thought this was an interesting piece. I had Todd image it at Fun so I could share it.
I'm wondering if it was cast or a die struck counterfeit. It looked cast to me but some folks were thinking die struck.
Not a big deal. Just wanting to be able to spot the difference.
Larry
2
Comments
Appears to be cast.
A piece of her arm is falling off...... agree with it being cast.
Successful BST transactions with lordmarcovan, Moldnut, erwindoc
Way to grainy of a surface to be struck, cast camp.
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
Definitely cast ... the granularity on the bar below the sun... the various 'gaps' on obverse and reverse.... Cheers, RickO
Matte Proof
A: The year they spend more on their library than their coin collection.
A numismatist is judged more on the content of their library than the content of their cabinet.
Thanks for the replies. I'm sure it is cast as well.
@Insider2 Any thoughts on this?
The numerous raised bumps in the gaps between the rays are clear indicators of being cast
mbogoman
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/classic-issues-colonials-through-1964/zambezi-collection-trade-dollars/7345Asesabi Lutho
Possible it's just environmental damage? Subjected to some kind of acid or other extreme exposure? Strange to be doubting a fake is actually fake, but that's my first impression.
--Severian the Lame
It looks spurious to me.
balance it on your finger tip and lightly tap it with another coin - it will ring if struck and thud if cast
It shows no trace of the visible "ring" through the outside lettering, imparted by the original striking, that is on every one of these that I've ever seen. That, plus the granularity and the voids in the surface...total fake. I'd confirm it thuds, rather than rings, when dropped on its edge on a table from a low height.
I'm going to disagree. While THE COIN LOOKS 100% CAST, AFAIK "they" are no longer making decent counterfeits such as this by centrifugal vacuum casting. Without the coin in hand, I'm playing the odds: Crudely struck counterfeit.
I don't know about the "crudely cast" part. I bet if you peddled it on a bourse floor, some dealer would bite on it if the price appeared to be cheap. That happened years ago at the FUN when some of the Coin World people took some Chinese coutnerfeits around.
i agree with the cast part as well
From a mile away it's definitely cast.
I know it was made over 25 years ago. I'm still thinking it's cast.
@ldhair said: "I know it was made over 25 years ago. I'm still thinking it's cast."
Where do you see the casting seam? They put them in the middle of the edge. Then someone got "smart" and they moved the seam to the rim.
From dies that were cast from an original.
bob
Well, looks like I'm the lone guy "out" around here.
Although anyone looking at the OP's coin would probably agree it is a cast, I have posted that it is a struck counterfeit.
Take a look at this crudely STRUCK COUNTERFEIT I've imaged. Note the tool mark, the lump on the "1," and the dot inside the date.
This is an image of another counterfeit STRUCK with THE SAME counterfeit dies:
This is a magnified image of the second *struck counterfeit.** Notice this piece shows a common characteristic of struck coins on the date. It goes by many names: