there are subtle differences in the stars - and "one that sticks out"=> the stars protrude more
and the letters mentioned are bulbous? inflated? slightly more bulging? not as bad as willy wonka's violet but enough to notice
not happy? how about the pearls wrapped around the bun? the earlobe? iffy... the lower strand of perals... is it 6 vs 7... 🧐hmm? the olives? upper eyelid is curved? the lettering sticks out?
I will say that the counterfeits shown in the past have more and easier seen differences. but there's the ones that stick out. this thing must have been acid treated at some point. it's just too clean and the surfaces are grainy
I'm not surprised at the test results. Most gold counterfeits made in the 1950's and 1960's were produced in Lebanon and contained the full weight of gold. They profited from the numismatic premium these coins commanded in the marketplace at the time. They didn't cheat on the gold content because they knew their product would be closely examined by gold traders as far as weight, dimensions, and gold fineness using a touchstone and acid. This coin is not a contemporary counterfeit produced in the early 1900's since it would not make sense to fake a $10 face-value circulating coin using $10 worth of gold.
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
@jonathanb said:
One extremely obvious difference is that the Coinfacts image has thin lines meeting in the centers of the stars, while the OP's image does not.
I've seen plenty of Lib $10 gold coins where the thin lines in the stars don't meet in the center due to a weak strike. I saw an 1888-O G$10 where the strike was so weak that some of the stars had no lines and were only shallow outlines of the stars due to a very weak strike.
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
This was one that instantly didn't look right to me but I convinced myself could just be cleaned/messed with to give that look. That's always the struggle I have identifying fakes.
Glad it was found to be real gold that's a nice consolation for sure.
I thought counterfeit when I first saw the first picture. The sloped relief of the date was the first thing that jumped out at me, then looking at the rest of the coin there was lots of mushy detail. Look at the fine detail in the protected areas of a real VF, such as hair, feathers in the wing, upper tail feathers, mint mark. All mushy or missing, especially the lowest relief, which is the highest relief of the transfer die. While die wear could eventually cause some stuff to mush out, that would be accompanied by heavy flow lines and streaks from the corners of the peripheral stuff (date, stars, legends) toward the rim. I also couldn't find a genuine 01-S in CoinFacts that showed any significant die erosion.
Not sure if I mentioned this earlier...but this has been sitting in a safe deposit box since the johnson/Nixon admin...so it was created using old school techniques
@Desert Moon said:
Here is a worn one from Coinfacts. Looks like all of the stars and devices, etc. are pretty much the same.
Um... No, it doesn't?
Or maybe you are using a version of the phrase "pretty much the same" that means "with a bunch of differences"?
One extremely obvious difference is that the Coinfacts image has thin lines meeting in the centers of the stars, while the OP's image does not.
When it comes to coins, close doesn't count. Either they're the SAME or they're not. That's doubly true when authenticity is part of the question.
OK Mr. Expert, so explain where it is counterfeit? Just don’t come back and sarcasticly denigrate my comment, show your expertise. Where is the issue? I mentioned that it could be a cast? You failed to mention that in your post.
@messydesk said:
I thought counterfeit when I first saw the first picture. The sloped relief of the date was the first thing that jumped out at me, then looking at the rest of the coin there was lots of mushy detail. Look at the fine detail in the protected areas of a real VF, such as hair, feathers in the wing, upper tail feathers, mint mark. All mushy or missing, especially the lowest relief, which is the highest relief of the transfer die. While die wear could eventually cause some stuff to mush out, that would be accompanied by heavy flow lines and streaks from the corners of the peripheral stuff (date, stars, legends) toward the rim. I also couldn't find a genuine 01-S in CoinFacts that showed any significant die erosion.
Which is why I called it a cast but transfer die could be more reasonable. In either case all of the devices are in the right place, just mushy which can be symptomatic of a counterfeit, despite the sarcastic remark directed to me above by one poster.
If it was a cast, there would be section of the reeds that would be messed up where the sprue attached to source of metal when pouring or spinning.
Look at the letters of the motto on reverse, the fake is incomplete and not as sharp. Look at claws on eagle and notice the details difference down toward the flat field. A struck coin from mint will wear from high points first. I would mention the lowest points of feathers and hair on obverse, but already mentioned and you did not understand that.
Final update...brought to a second NYC jeweler...retested a second time since coming back as "Not Genuine"
In regards to gold content, everything looked legit to them and they didn't feel it was obviously "altered" or "counterfeit"...their words...and I sold it for $1,150 melt value.
@RichR said:
Final update...brought to a second NYC jeweler...retested a second time since coming back as "Not Genuine"
In regards to gold content, everything looked legit to them and they didn't feel it was obviously "altered" or "counterfeit"...their words...and I sold it for $1,150 melt value.
And now I'll have a nice weekend.
Melt value is a lot higher than $1150 - hopefully the sale occurred when gold was much lower.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Comments
here's a 25 OGH from HA
there are subtle differences in the stars - and "one that sticks out"=> the stars protrude more
and the letters mentioned are bulbous? inflated? slightly more bulging? not as bad as willy wonka's violet but enough to notice
not happy? how about the pearls wrapped around the bun? the earlobe? iffy... the lower strand of perals... is it 6 vs 7... 🧐hmm? the olives? upper eyelid is curved? the lettering sticks out?
I will say that the counterfeits shown in the past have more and easier seen differences. but there's the ones that stick out. this thing must have been acid treated at some point. it's just too clean and the surfaces are grainy
I'm not surprised at the test results. Most gold counterfeits made in the 1950's and 1960's were produced in Lebanon and contained the full weight of gold. They profited from the numismatic premium these coins commanded in the marketplace at the time. They didn't cheat on the gold content because they knew their product would be closely examined by gold traders as far as weight, dimensions, and gold fineness using a touchstone and acid. This coin is not a contemporary counterfeit produced in the early 1900's since it would not make sense to fake a $10 face-value circulating coin using $10 worth of gold.
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
Um... No, it doesn't?
Or maybe you are using a version of the phrase "pretty much the same" that means "with a bunch of differences"?
One extremely obvious difference is that the Coinfacts image has thin lines meeting in the centers of the stars, while the OP's image does not.
When it comes to coins, close doesn't count. Either they're the SAME or they're not. That's doubly true when authenticity is part of the question.
I've seen plenty of Lib $10 gold coins where the thin lines in the stars don't meet in the center due to a weak strike. I saw an 1888-O G$10 where the strike was so weak that some of the stars had no lines and were only shallow outlines of the stars due to a very weak strike.
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
This was one that instantly didn't look right to me but I convinced myself could just be cleaned/messed with to give that look. That's always the struggle I have identifying fakes.
Glad it was found to be real gold that's a nice consolation for sure.
I thought counterfeit when I first saw the first picture. The sloped relief of the date was the first thing that jumped out at me, then looking at the rest of the coin there was lots of mushy detail. Look at the fine detail in the protected areas of a real VF, such as hair, feathers in the wing, upper tail feathers, mint mark. All mushy or missing, especially the lowest relief, which is the highest relief of the transfer die. While die wear could eventually cause some stuff to mush out, that would be accompanied by heavy flow lines and streaks from the corners of the peripheral stuff (date, stars, legends) toward the rim. I also couldn't find a genuine 01-S in CoinFacts that showed any significant die erosion.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Not sure if I mentioned this earlier...but this has been sitting in a safe deposit box since the johnson/Nixon admin...so it was created using old school techniques
OK Mr. Expert, so explain where it is counterfeit? Just don’t come back and sarcasticly denigrate my comment, show your expertise. Where is the issue? I mentioned that it could be a cast? You failed to mention that in your post.
Thanks for that, DM
Which is why I called it a cast but transfer die could be more reasonable. In either case all of the devices are in the right place, just mushy which can be symptomatic of a counterfeit, despite the sarcastic remark directed to me above by one poster.
If it was a cast, there would be section of the reeds that would be messed up where the sprue attached to source of metal when pouring or spinning.
Look at the letters of the motto on reverse, the fake is incomplete and not as sharp. Look at claws on eagle and notice the details difference down toward the flat field. A struck coin from mint will wear from high points first. I would mention the lowest points of feathers and hair on obverse, but already mentioned and you did not understand that.
Final update...brought to a second NYC jeweler...retested a second time since coming back as "Not Genuine"
In regards to gold content, everything looked legit to them and they didn't feel it was obviously "altered" or "counterfeit"...their words...and I sold it for $1,150 melt value.
And now I'll have a nice weekend.
Melt value is a lot higher than $1150 - hopefully the sale occurred when gold was much lower.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I was also getting about $200 of assorted watch and jewelry repair done...so that was added on top of the $1150...so about $1350 in reality...