Counterfeit coin? Counterfeit holder? Or is someone posting misinformation about our host!
Insider2
Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭
Please check out this discussion and see what you think:
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/fs-901-ddr-1899-barber-quarter-fake.339299/
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The motto does look weird.
@basetsb_coins on Instagram
That's what many are drawn to.
Holder looks genuine, the coin doesn't.
Just my 2 cents.
T's in TRUST are both completely wrong, among other things. The misshapen stars first caught my eye,
But are they saying all of the FS-901s are contemporary counterfeits, like whatever that CC Morgan was?
it has a TruView, so someone at PCGS saw it
I've never collected Barber anythings. But, my first thought was why are the stars different sizes and different distances from the rim. The first star to the left of the date caught my attention instantly. If it were raw and offered to me I'd pass.
bob
More than just the motto looks wrong.
"They" may not know what they are talking about. Now that you provided excellent images of the motto, the PCGS coin is probably C/F for sure [thanks, I'll pass that on] but that does NOT mean that the genuine variety does not exist!
It wasn't clear to me what "they" were trying to say on that. I can speculate that a faker could easily accidentally create a DDR on their own. Or they happen to grab a DDR to use for their fake reverse die? Weird that the faker would grab the only other known 1899 DDR (assuming this one and the guide coin are different). Strange either way, that there are apparently only one or two known - not a very successful counterfeit.
Diagnostics of high quality counterfeit coins from photo is a slippery slope. I read the thread, looked at the photos and there is not a good comparative photo to make a 100% judgment that the OP coin is counterfeit. I am going to hold judgment that PCGS made a mistake until the coin goes back to PCGS for analysis.
Insider2, do you have an opinion on the coin being fake or genuine?
IMO, after seeing the images posted here, IMO, the coin in the slab is counterfeit. It is very crude. Stuff happens, but I don't think there is any chance that this fake got past PCGS authenticators. I'd suspect the holder is bad.
The TV on PCGS are the same images used in the article though, and also the variety listing here https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1899-25c-ddr-fs-901/511562. I'm not sure if there's doubt that the holder is legit. Seller has their own images, which might be worth preserving...
Are you certain that a very late state die would not exhibit features like the mostly missing serifs in the letters?
A counterfeit of an unusual die pairing is a strong argument against it being "contemporary". Contemporary counterfeits were typically of very common issues to make them easier to pass.
...except the PCGS cert number checks and shows a TruView that I posted. Maybe the Russians hacked PCGS database and are inserting their own now?
When I posted, I did not see the TRUST photos. I am in the counterfeit camp.
1899-P was the largest Barber quarter mintage. It makes sense to fake it, and use real silver, since the silver value was probably one-third of face value at the time. The only thing "unusual" with the die pairing is the DDR - it appears to be the correct Reverse 2 otherwise. Reverse 3 came out in 1900, and the faker could easily have picked the wrong reverse to use, since I assume this was made post-1899. I wonder if it was the same counterfeiter as the Morgans?
It took me a few looks but I noticed that in the comparison pics that there is no separation of the denticles and rim on the quarter in question as well as the shoddy lettering. the separation between each denticle is also wider.
Wow, you are right. They still could have taken a genuine coin and slab PCGS issued and faked the entire thing.
I still refuse to believe this one slipped past.
Polishing the die and LDS will change the letters but IMO, not the case here. I believe this fake was made sometime in the last 25 years.
The slab looks really good to be a fake. I can't pick out anything on the slab that tells me it is a fake slab. In that case if it is a fake slab then it is a really darned good one, and that is very scary to me.
FWIW About a year ago a dealer had a PCGS Morgan that clearly had altered surfaces, it was graded MS-64. The coin was for sure 100% genuine and so was the holder. I wanted to buy it but I did not want to pay MS-64 money for it. The dealer & I could not come to a price agreement so I had to pass. We are all human and subject to making a mistake. The holder looks genuine unless the counterfeiters have made recent improvements.
Again, just my 2 cents.
Edited to add: I have seen mistakes with all 3 major TPG's.
The whole coin looks "mushy" to me
I'm going counterfeit
HAPPY COLLECTING
Not sure what the confusion is. The item on the left in kbbpll's post is a counterfeit as is the item in the post below it. The fake should not fool any except a novice.
Does anyone have a history on this variety? Things like, when was it discovered, where did it first appear, how many exist, etc. That might go a long way to indicating whether the entire variety is fake, or if we have just one copy-cat here....
The holder.
I'm not convinced that it's a fake but if you are, here are a few questions. Was it struck or cast? What kind of die transfer was used? The DDR would appear to be much more difficult to fake so why is the obverse so crude if the forger got the reverse to look as accurate as it does?
Late die state or polishing would increase the size and thickness of characters, not reduce them. Material would have to be added to the die to produce thinner letters.
Please see my response on CoinTalk
To my eye the most anomalous letter is the U. If the reduction of thickness and missing sharp points are due to die polishing (following the argument that the coin is genuine) then the thickening of the right side upright of U would be an example of die erosion, as would be most likely in a very narrow, yet deeply struck, original line.
There is no question that it is the correct coin in the correct holder (counterfeit or not). If you type the registry number in, there is an image of that very coin in the PCGS database for that slab.
So, IF IF IF the coin is counterfeit, PCGS did slab it as genuine.
The only question is the coin itself genuine or counterfeit.
@jgenn said: "I'm not convinced that it's a fake but if you are, here are a few questions. Was it struck or cast? What kind of die transfer was used? The DDR would appear to be much more difficult to fake so why is the obverse so crude if the forger got the reverse to look as accurate as it does?"
What I think does not matter, this is an image. What PCGS thinks is all that is important. Since I believe it is a crude counterfeit based on what I've seen in the magnified images, I'll say it is die struck.
How was the die made? Great question. My simple answer: Shortly after I became an authenticator, I made a conscious decision. From that day on I didn't care/had absolutely no interest in knowing how a counterfeit was made. My only goal was to be able to correctly IDENTIFY a genuine coin or a counterfeit coin from all time periods all over the world. I have not reached my goal yet and time is running out.
Decades ago, one of the first things I noticed about ALL counterfeits (this is no longer 100% true) was the fact that one side was ALWAYS better done than the other. I am STILL hopeful that most of us are wrong and PCGS got it "right."
Please see my attempt at a humorous reply to you on CT. Basically, I suggested you stick to foreign coins.
you are posting in defense of the coin. It gives all of us a chance to hear different opinions.
Actually, I'm glad
@jmlanzaf said: "There is no question that it is the correct coin in the correct holder (counterfeit or not). If you type the registry number in, there is an image of that very coin in the PCGS database for that slab. So, IF IF IF the coin is counterfeit, PCGS did slab it as genuine. The only question is the coin itself genuine or counterfeit."
Yes, my error. I hope we find out one way or the other.
Just posting what I see. Real one top image. The top of E gets thicker, but the vertical left of E gets thinner? An extra design flourish appears on the bottom? Note also the interior of O. Selective die erosion and die polishing?
@jmlanzaf I have more than one question.
1. Whether real or fake, why so few of them?
2. If fake, are all FS-901 fake? The FS image shows only a small section of reverse.
3. if fake, is this the same culprit as the 1896, 1900, and 1902 "micro O" Morgan contemporary counterfeits?
Personally, I think it MUST be fake. After all, the letters are all the wrong shape and I don' t think die wear can account for extra long serifs, rounded "O"s and thinner letters.
This could simply be a prematurely broken reverse die. The obverse die is standard so there would be as many FS-901s as the reverse die could strike. It's also possible that it is hard to diagnose on low grade coins and this is a workhorse coin.
Someone needs to get a full coin image of the discovery coin. I think the most obvious thing that is fake about it is the legend. But the arrows and feathers do differ between the discovery coin and this one so maybe only this one is fake.
We'll never know. But I suspect not because of the rarity. You don't go to the trouble of setting up a counterfeiting set-up to strike a handful of coins. IF IF IF the discovery coin is real, I would suspect this coin is actually a modern counterfeit possibly intended to deceive as the variety. You wouldn't set up a counterfeiting ring for one coin to circulate, but you might well set up a counterfeiting ring to make one really expensive rarity.
But, I'm just speculating. I don't know anything except that legend is 100 ways wrong.
Just look at the difference in the "U" in TRUST, then "U" decide.
Pete
OK. Let's make this really simple. Nothing is correct on that "coin."
Nothing.
Sorry, I know I'm beating this to death. I like a project I guess. But I'm starting to think that the "discovery" coin is also counterfeit. Granted, all we seem to have is the image from the FS guide. But in my experience, the letters on US coins from this era always have a chiseled look with very "flat" surfaces. The "discovery" FS-901 looks rounded and "blobby",
Even down in VF25 the flat chiseled letters are apparent on real ones:
Then there's the butt end of the arrows, where there is a distinct notch in every coin I've looked at on Heritage. Where is it?
Looks like a counterfeit that got past the graders. PCGS should be reaching out to the current owner to buy it back.
8 Reales Madness Collection
For those saying the obverse letters look weak, the reverse letters and arrows opposite them look much bigger. When striking the coin, there is only so much metal to move.
looks like a metal flow problem.
Great discussion.... I agree with the 'fake' designation on the subject coin.... I would really like to see the PCGS experts get the coin and post the findings here...Cheers, RickO
it is known that the Chinese have made forgeries using the most modern computerized equipment ad have actually fooled our host and other TPG's with high grade Canadian coins.
Perhaps SPP and SYL might want to chime in as they, I believe, were involved in the analyses of at least one of the fakes and had the results published in the RCNA Journal.
Except that this one does not look like a high end forgery at all. Everything about it looks off.
I would also add that the laser chatter doubling on fakes is a known phenomenon. It would be interesting if the doubling here is laser chatter from the laser etching of the dies and rather than ending up as a diagnostic it ended up as a DDR.
Probably doesn't add much to the discussion, but a current Chinese fake shows "some" similarities. Garbage T's, extra flourish at the bottom of E, truncation of the R in Liberty. Nothing doubled on reverse though.
I'm not defending the above coin but here's a certified example that is starting to show how the bottom of the E starts to degrade.
If it were one letter, I could see almost anything due to degradation and/or sloppy repair of the die. But it's ALL the letters.
Interesting thread. The coin looks fake to me, too. The font is off, the luster, everything.
This is a head scratcher as to how this got into a slab!
My YouTube Channel