Please help grade my new $3 gold purchases!

Ogden · December 22, 2003 6:07AM

I bought these two coins yesterday. Would you gold experts please give me the benefit of grading these coins and an approximate value. The 1882 (2) is the overdate one.

Thanks
Ogden

edit to add 1888 reverse

ms70 · December 22, 2003 6:11AM

1882 Obverse

1882 Reverse

1888 Obverse

1888 Reverse

ms70 · December 22, 2003 6:12AM

Thought I'd post'em for you so they're easier to view. Super nice pieces!

hjohn74 · December 22, 2003 6:15AM

Beautiful! Wow, I cannot wait to start collecting gold!!!

MrEureka · December 22, 2003 6:15AM

Counterfeits.

SethChandler · December 22, 2003 6:16AM

They look fake, to me that is. Are they certified?

Seth

hjohn74 · December 22, 2003 6:17AM

fake? how can you tell?

Ogden · December 22, 2003 6:17AM

Thanks MS-70, one day I'll figure out how to post the pictures with the actual photo's rather than the link. If you get the time will you send me a message on the forum on how to do this?

Thanks again

Ogden

SethChandler · December 22, 2003 6:17AM

UMMMM.............If Andy says they are counterfeits, then .....

Ogden · December 22, 2003 6:18AM

I hope they are not fake. What would make you think so? No they aren't graded, but I inted to submit them soon. Just got them yesterday.

Ogden

DRG · December 22, 2003 6:21AM

I am certainly not a gold expert, but my very first question would be why are such expensive coins not slabbed.

This is not generic gold!

I would be very concerned and not even consider buying coins like these (unslabbed/authenticated) unless I was an expert in 3$ Gold.

MrEureka · December 22, 2003 6:29AM

It's possible that the images are distorted and I'm wrong, but it's highly unlikely. The imaged coins have a bloated and blurred look typical of the known counterfeits of these dates. The real coins have a very different look.

MrEureka · December 22, 2003 6:30AM

Here's a real 1888:

Placid · December 22, 2003 6:32AM

Top is the 1882 on coinfacts.
The mouth seems shaped a little different.
1,500 minted I would doubt more than one die was used.

BillJones · December 22, 2003 6:34AM

Yes, these coins seem to lack detail on the high points, and it's lacking from something other than wear. That's often a tip-off. I'm also not happy with the fields around the heads. There are too many mounds or lumps.

It's hard to positively say that coins are bad from pictures, but these pieces are not something that I would not take a run at from these pictures. Back in the '60s and '70s counterfiet $3 gold coins were all over the place.

coinguy1 · December 22, 2003 6:37AM

I'm with Andy, though I am hesitant to make such judgments based upon images, which, as he pointed out, can distort the coins' appearances. The first one looks especially suspicious to me and, if I were a betting man, I'd bet on their being fakes.

Hopefully, we're mistaken. Either way, this is another valuable reminder / lesson about the dangers of buying uncertified coins, especially those which are not inexpensive and often counterfeited.

ms70 · December 22, 2003 6:38AM

<< <i>Thanks MS-70, one day I'll figure out how to post the pictures with the actual photo's rather than the link. If you get the time will you send me a message on the forum on how to do this?

Thanks again

Ogden >>

PM sent!

LAWMAN · December 22, 2003 6:43AM

The '82 and '88 have wierd lack of luster and the surface looks a little different.

Dukie101 · December 22, 2003 6:51AM

Mouth looks different to me as well????

RYK · December 22, 2003 6:52AM

Agree...fakes...look how broad the third digit in 1888 is. Surfaces appear strange, but I guess photography could create this appearance. Try to get a refund. Unless you are expert (and I am not), avoid uncertified rare date gold.

Robert

Blade · December 22, 2003 7:02AM

Ogden - Sound advice here. Return them asap.

au58 · December 22, 2003 7:04AM

The photos LOOK LIKE typical cast counterfeits (i.e., lacking fine detail but showing little actual wear combined with apparently distended major features). However, nothing can be ascertained from the photos.

relayer · December 22, 2003 7:07AM

The 1882 looks like it had cheek implants

Ogden · December 22, 2003 7:08AM

I have dealt with this dealer before and he is a good guy. I bought a double eagle from him that later was found (by PCGS) to be cleaned. Told him and he gave me my money back. I also asked him
yesterday if PCGS returned them for any reason he said he would refund my money. He is an older guy just doing this in his space time. He's at every collectible show and I have his card. I'll let everyone know. I'm sending them off to PCGS tomorrow.

I wanted to add that the photo's I took probably didn't show the coin accurately. I think it was just the angle. But I wanted to add again that the reverse of the 1882 had the "Double 2" in the date. I compared this to the exact 1882/2 at the Heritage auction archives and it is identical. Why would a counterfited go to this length?

Ogden

Ryana · December 22, 2003 7:08AM

darktone · December 22, 2003 10:55AM

The 1882 actually looks like the counterfiet in the PCGS counterfiet detection book on page 276. The mark in front of the chin. mike

sinin1 · December 23, 2003 2:11AM

my guess

1882 - die struck copy
1888 - AU58

good luck - and let us know in a few weeks

Placid · December 23, 2003 2:26AM

<< <i>my guess
1882 - die struck copy
1888 - AU58 >>

Please help grade my new $3 gold purchases!

Comments

Leave a Comment