Options
More fake "Silverstone" errors?
IkesT
Posts: 4,270 ✭✭✭✭✭
The fabric of this particular piece doesn't look right for a genuine coin or a genuine error. I skimmed through the Joe Cronin article on the "Charles Silverstone" fake error coins (posted on another thread by @StrikeOutXXX and attached below) and believe that this may be one. The eBay seller is out of Clearwater, Florida, which is reportedly one of the localities where "Mr. Silverstone" is/was actively selling.
3
Comments
Here's another one from the same seller:
What a peculiar surface. I wonder what the design transfer technology is.
I don’t really see anything wrong with these other than weird lighting.
Not all fakes are equally obvious. These two may not be as obvious as the commemoratives I just posted, for example, but they are fake nonetheless.
One aspect that gives them both away is the odd graininess of the surfaces. The fake Lincoln cent w/ cud is also given away by the mushiness of the detail. The 1936 off-center is given away by the lack of contrast between the "struck" region and the "unstruck" planchet region - they both have the same strange fabric.
They sure would have fooled me.
My Original Song Written to my late wife-"Plus other original music by me"
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8A11CC8CC6093D80
U.S. Army Veteran 1/11 ACR Fulda, Germany
.
I believe both of these are genuine. The photography is causing a weird surface appearance.
I appreciate the feedback - thank you all. Perhaps I am overreaching based on problematic images.
Some areas, to these eyes at least, seem to have an irredescent tone to them. The coin or it's the photography.
Looks like crappy pics. Coins such as these are best bought already slabbed.
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
Good morning – both pieces look genuine to me
As Fred said, they look genuine.
Thank you all once again!
Another observation, in hindsight - the "Silverstone" pieces were big, showy "errors" (double denominations, off-metals, multi-strikes, etc.). That should have been a tipoff to me, as well. Thank you.
Fred, I am willing to be proven wrong on this one, but I don't like the was the unstruck area to the right of the date looks exactly the same as the struck area above the date. Where is the "planchet luster" on the unstruck area?
Tom, it might be a lighting issue – there seems to be plenty of mint luster on the reverse side of the coin, both the struck and unstruck areas.
Yes, but it is the same in both areas. Planchet luster usually looks different than die-struck luster.
Both errors look legit to me. The photos were highly processed, there is a "sharpen" tool in Photoshop that will give images this highly pixelated look.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
I can see that as a possibility.
Different question. What do you make of the roughness through AMER opposite the cud? Should be relatively normal planchet surface through there.
Why would any counterfeit a CUD ?
Errors are real IMO, over processed digital image.
That is what has me puzzled also. Should be smoother opposite the cud.
I don't know, I have seen unstruck planchets with surfaces rougher than that. The coin is also obviously circulated.
Honestly, I think it is a fool's errand to make any determinations of the surfaces from those images, I can see enough to think they are genuine Mint errors but you cannot even begin to grade from them.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
Chris- I agree about the cud.
Most of his were off metals, double demoninations, multi stikes, etc.
I haven’t seen a fake Silverstone cud.
His ‘work’ was scary, and fooled PCGS, NGC and ANACS until Jon figured it out.