So how does someone make a fake error like this?

sonofagunk · July 6, 2005 11:16AM

Something just doesn't look right about this coin. Since in his description it says that is "might be fake", I am assuming it is.

windwhispersintrees · July 6, 2005 11:25AM

Not my area of expertise, but I don't see anything obviously wrong with it.
Why would someone bother faking such a relatively common (low value) error anyway?

sonofagunk · July 6, 2005 11:30AM

the "2nd" stamp just doesn't look correct. If it were real, it would be $100-$300 coin (if not more)

MAD4MORGANS · July 6, 2005 12:10PM

Looks real to me!! But errormavin and coppercoins should look at this.

Danegeld · July 6, 2005 12:22PM

LOL, wonder how it sat in the roll?

coppercoins · July 6, 2005 12:33PM

It's an error (or a fake one) - outside my area of expertice. I can't tell for sure whether it's real or fake, but it looks suspitious to me. The main questions I would have center on the lower right base and the EN of CENT on the second strike. This strike would have to have come fromt he same die, yet the heavy die gouges evident in the second strike are not on the first strike. Also, what's the deal with that big hump under the N on the second strike? That would have to be a big gouge or dent in the die as well, which doesn't show on the first strike.

errormaven · July 6, 2005 10:39PM

I can't say whether it's real or fake. That would require an inspection under a microscope. The second strike could have been delivered by fake dies. The surface of the second strike appears suspiciously grainy, but that could just be the light. The reverse fails to show any trace of a collar scar associated with the second strike, but a collar scar is absent on some genuine double-strikes. If the two strikes were delivered by two different die pairs, that would not necessarily indicate fakery. Dual presses were in use well before 1961.

If bidding, I would get a firm return guarantee.

BillJones · July 6, 2005 10:57PM

I'd vote "fake." The second strike looks mushy and lacks detail. Usually the second strike on these coins is just about as sharp as the first one.

I also don't like the way the metal under second strike is a lighter color than the first one. That indicates to me that it was done quite a while after the first one. Although the coin has been cleaned, going by the picture, it should still have a more uniform appearance.

As for how it was done, all one would need is a false set of dies.

Shamika · July 6, 2005 11:37PM

<< <i>As for how it was done, all one would need is a false set of dies. >>

Easier said than done.

I think this error is real.

FredWeinberg · July 7, 2005 12:20AM

In my opinion, this 1961 Cent is unquestionably a
fake, struck with counterfiet dies for the second
strike.

There are many of these types of D/S pictured in the
"Spadone" book on errors, which was published in
a few editions in the 1960's.

There are books that explain "impact dies", and
"EDM" dies that discuss in detail how the dies
were made, and how such pieces were struck.
(EDM = Electrical Discharge Machinery)

John Devine ("Lonesome John") wrote two of the
books called "Detecting Counterfiet Coins" and
"Detecting Counterfeit Gold Coins", first published
in 1975.

Fred

errormaven · July 7, 2005 1:15AM

<< <i>In my opinion, this 1961 Cent is unquestionably a
fake, struck with counterfiet dies for the second
strike.

Fred >>

The preponderance of the evidence does support your opinion, Fred.

-- Mike Diamond

So how does someone make a fake error like this?

Comments

Leave a Comment