Counterfeit 1900-O Morgan

Newb · June 29, 2006 5:46AM

A member told me I should start a thread with this coin, and I think that's good advice. It came from my Grandad's "collection" of dollars he saved during the operation of his small country store in NC during the 30's and 40's. I say "collection" because all he did was throw them in an empty lard bucket.

I was told the metal in between the U and M of UNUM was the tell tale sign and it more than likely came from the same guy that was making Micro O's.

Yale68 · June 29, 2006 5:59AM

Someday it will be determined that "some guy" did not make the micro O's. They were made in the mint, but the same reverse die was used in 1896, 1900, 1902 (and even for a while in 1899).

Steve27 · June 29, 2006 6:03AM

" Someday it will be determined that "some guy" did not make the micro O's. They were made in the mint, but the same reverse die was used in 1896, 1900, 1902 (and even for a while in 1899)."

That's never gonna happen; the silver content on the fakes is about 93-94% as opposed to the Mint standard 90%. (Yes, they made money on these at a dollar a coin even with a higher silver content.)

Yale68 · June 29, 2006 6:08AM

Regardless of the silver content (which I'm not sure I believe), they were made in the mint - - its a fact; don't believe that counterfeit crap

Newb · June 29, 2006 6:11AM

<< Regardless of the silver content (which I'm not sure I believe), they were made in the mint - - its a fact; don't believe that counterfeit crap >>

PCGS does.

(Newport Beach, California) – The so-called “Micro O” variety New Orleans Mint Morgan silver dollars dated 1896, 1900 and 1902 are actually deceptive, contemporary counterfeits, according to research conducted by the Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS) of Newport Beach, California, a division of Collectors Universe, Inc. (NASDAQ: CLCT).

The authentication and grading company will no longer certify additional specimens, and will offer a refund of full market value for current owners of PCGS-certified examples.

“The discovery of the contemporary counterfeit status of the 1896-O, 1900-O, and 1902-O ‘Micro O’ Morgan dollars came about as PCGS experts studied an unusually high number of these coins that recently were submitted to PCGS for certification,” according to a written statement issued by PCGS on April 26, 2005. (The full text of the statement accompanies this news release.)

“After examining the group of coins, it became apparent that these Morgan dollars were not struck in the New Orleans Mint in the years indicated by their dates. In fact, they were not struck in the mint at any time. These coins are among the most deceptive copies of United States coins seen. It is probable that they date to the early part of the twentieth century, but may have been struck as late as the 1940's.”

PCGS has certified 95 of the contemporary counterfeit “Micro O” Morgan dollars over the years: 26 of the 1896-O; 31 1900-O; and 38 1902-O specimens.

DennisH · June 29, 2006 6:11AM

Thie coin pictured sure doesn't look like a VAM 5 Micro-O to me. The mint mark is not nearly small, round or mushy enough.

Also, that die break between U and M isn't a clincher diagnostic for the Micro-O. I can't find which VAM this is, but I'll keep looking.

Steve27 · June 29, 2006 6:13AM

" Thie coin pictured sure doesn't look like a VAM 5 Micro-O to me."

I agree, I'm not sure it's one of the fakes.

Newb · June 29, 2006 6:13AM

<< Thie coin pictured sure doesn't look like a VAM 5 Micro-O to me. The mint mark is not nearly small, round or mushy enough.

Also, that die break between U and M isn't a clincher diagnostic for the Micro-O. I can't find which VAM this is, but I'll keep looking. >>

Thanks Dennis. I didn't say it was a Micro O, just that I was told it was counterfeit.

CaptHenway · June 29, 2006 6:17AM

Looks genuine to me.
Tom DeLorey

JJM · June 29, 2006 6:37AM

looks ok to me too

Coxe · June 29, 2006 6:40AM

Very near slanted date, open 9, mint mark set left and tilted right. VAM-22C1 and it too is counterfeit.

DennisH · June 29, 2006 6:42AM

"Thanks Dennis. I didn't say it was a Micro O, just that I was told it was counterfeit."

Sorry about that, my mistake. My understanding was that the only coins believed to be counterfeit by PCGS, NGC, and ANACS among the three dates discussed so far in this thread are the Micro-Os. Thanks, Coxe, for the education!

By the way, here's a shot of the reverse of my Fine-12 PCGS Micro-O example. As you can see, the mintmark is much different than the one on the coin at the start of this thread:

Coxe · June 29, 2006 6:43AM

I mean VAM-22C2. Same thing though. It is a contemporary counterfeit and, I believe, a desirable one.

Newb · June 29, 2006 6:54AM

<< I mean VAM-22C2. Same thing though. It is a contemporary counterfeit and, I believe, a desirable one. >>

That's a hell of an eye, Coxe! What do you mean by "open 9"? I've got 4 others and they all look the same, hence my username lol.

And expound on "contemporary counterfeit", if you don't mind.

Thanks

edit to clarify: The nines look the same, that's all.

Newb · June 29, 2006 6:58AM

<< Sorry about that, my mistake. My understanding was that the only coins believed to be counterfeit by PCGS, NGC, and ANACS among the three dates discussed so far in this thread are the Micro-Os. Thanks, Coxe, for the education!

By the way, here's a shot of the reverse of my Fine-12 PCGS Micro-O example. As you can see, the mintmark is much different than the one on the coin at the start of this thread: >>

No prob Dennis, thanks for your input and nice coin!

Rampage · June 29, 2006 7:07AM

Awesome coin. One to keep in the collection for sure.

That is VAM 22C2 as John stated.

Dennis, Leroy released a publication last year with all the information on the counterfeits (the micro-Os, the VAM 22C1 and 2, etc). There is even an 1879 Morgan in the group, but I forget which one.

Coxe · June 29, 2006 7:07AM

<< 

<< I mean VAM-22C2. Same thing though. It is a contemporary counterfeit and, I believe, a desirable one. >>

That's a hell of an eye, Coxe! What do you mean by "open 9"? I've got 4 others and they all look the same, hence my username lol.

And expound on "contemporary counterfeit", if you don't mind.

Thanks

edit to clarify: The nines look the same, that's all. >>

The ball of the 9 (end of the tail) is clearly separated from the upper loop.

It is a counterfeit presumed to have been made in the early part of the 20th century.

With any coin, to attribute it properly, always start by looking at the date position (normal is about 2.5 denticles to the right of the point of Liberty's neck) and mint mark size and position. I saw knowledgeable guys debate a coin one time (I thinkon this forum) while sitting back on the sidelines laughing inside as it could not have been either because it was a far date and they were considering two normal date placement VAMs. I have done the same enough times in the past that I always start from there rather than bellowing out a "D'oh!" 30 minutes later.

MAD4MORGANS · June 29, 2006 7:14AM

VAMworld

DennisH · June 29, 2006 7:16AM

"PCGS has certified 95 of the contemporary counterfeit “Micro O” Morgan dollars over the years: 26 of the 1896-O; 31 1900-O; and 38 1902-O specimens."

Here's an interesting update to these numbers. As of 6/29/06 the on-line pop report showed totals of 22, 27 and 34.

Rampage · June 29, 2006 7:18AM

<< "PCGS has certified 95 of the contemporary counterfeit “Micro O” Morgan dollars over the years: 26 of the 1896-O; 31 1900-O; and 38 1902-O specimens."

Here's an interesting update to these numbers. As of 6/29/06 the on-line pop report showed totals of 22, 27 and 34. >>

That is a bit odd. I thought for sure people would have returned them for the money PCGS was offering. I saw a 1900 and 1902 on eBay recently. They are probably still in the search if anyone wants to check them out. They were still in the micro-O slab, too.

MAD4MORGANS · June 29, 2006 7:19AM

<< 

<< "PCGS has certified 95 of the contemporary counterfeit “Micro O” Morgan dollars over the years: 26 of the 1896-O; 31 1900-O; and 38 1902-O specimens."

Here's an interesting update to these numbers. As of 6/29/06 the on-line pop report showed totals of 22, 27 and 34. >>

That is a bit odd. I thought for sure people would have returned them for the money PCGS was offering. I saw a 1900 and 1902 on eBay recently. They are probably still in the search if anyone wants to check them out. They were still in the micro-O slab, too. >>

I think PCGS made the offer so they can squander them away!!

Newb · June 29, 2006 7:20AM

Ok I'm really confused now...

In April 2004, PCGS announced the discovery that the Micro O versions of the 1896-O, 1900-O, and 1902-O Silver Dollars were all counterfeit. In May 2005, confirmed that the 1900-O Micro O (VAM 22) was a cast counterfeit and that there were actually TWO subvarieties of VAM 22: 1) VAM 22C1 (mintmark tilted slightly to the right) and 2) VAM 22C2 (mintmark high and tilted slightly to the left).

But the O on my original looks the same as on the other 4 19OO-O's I've got!! And all the 9's are open!! HELP!!

hold it...now I see what you mean about counting denticles...very interesting...

But the O question remains...

Thanks!

coinkat · June 29, 2006 7:22AM

THIS IS NOT A MICRO o

DennisH · June 29, 2006 7:24AM

That's a nice looking circ. Morgan!

Also, notice how this one doesn't have the gouges or lines between U and M? (But it does have a big die crack through the eagle's wingtip).

Newb · June 29, 2006 7:32AM

<< That's a nice looking circ. Morgan!

Also, notice how this one doesn't have the gouges or lines between U and M? (But it does have a big die crack through the eagle's wingtip). >>

Thanks Dennis and yes, no U and M business and that is a nice crack on the wing.

But the O looks the same as my first one. Not like yours, ya know??

Newb · June 29, 2006 7:40AM

<< VAMworld >>

there we go...

"Note that that this obverse is NOT unique to the VAM-4 Micro O. At least two different normal O reverses are paired with this obverse: 1900-O VAM-22C1 and VAM-22C2 also use this obverse with the VAM-4."

that clears it up.

Thanks Mad4Morgans!

Newb · June 29, 2006 11:20AM

<< THIS IS NOT A MICRO o >>

right, the question was whether it was just a counterfeit 1900-O.

and yes, even though the mystery is solved, this a bump for the evening.

messydesk · June 29, 2006 11:43AM

Cool and very desirable coin you have there. The reverse die is a link to other contemporary counterfeits struck by this outfit. You have to wonder what other dates were used with the large O.

Oh, and PCGS won't slab it, but I will.

Newb · June 29, 2006 12:17PM

<< Cool and very desirable coin you have there. The reverse die is a link to other contemporary counterfeits struck by this outfit. You have to wonder what other dates were used with the large O.

Oh, and PCGS won't slab it, but I will.

>>

Thanks messydesk, and that's a cool idea you've got there. I just may take you up on that. Got about 200 more Morgans and Peaces to go through.

Conder101 · June 30, 2006 2:50AM

<< there we go...

"Note that that this obverse is NOT unique to the VAM-4 Micro O. At least two different normal O reverses are paired with this obverse: 1900-O VAM-22C1 and VAM-22C2 also use this obverse with the VAM-4."

that clears it up. >>

And what that quite possibly means is either that VAM-22C1 and VAM-22C2 are counterfeits as well, or that the counterfeiters used a VAM-22C1 or 22C2 as the model for making their fake obv die. The question now is Which one is it?

<< That is a bit odd. I thought for sure people would have returned them for the money PCGS was offering. I saw a 1900 and 1902 on eBay recently. They are probably still in the search if anyone wants to check them out. They were still in the micro-O slab, too. >> >>

Some people would rather have the counterfeit in a PCGS slab. They can always return it for the money, but how often do you find a counterfeit coin in a PCGS slab?

One more thing about those numbers. PCGS didn't begin putting the Micro O designation on the labels until 1998 or 99. There can be other examples in PCGS slabs as well that don't have the designation that aren't included in those numbers.

Rampage · June 30, 2006 3:05AM

<< 

<< there we go...

"Note that that this obverse is NOT unique to the VAM-4 Micro O. At least two different normal O reverses are paired with this obverse: 1900-O VAM-22C1 and VAM-22C2 also use this obverse with the VAM-4."

that clears it up. >>

And what that quite possibly means is either that VAM-22C1 and VAM-22C2 are counterfeits as well, or that the counterfeiters used a VAM-22C1 or 22C2 as the model for making their fake obv die. The question now is Which one is it?

<< That is a bit odd. I thought for sure people would have returned them for the money PCGS was offering. I saw a 1900 and 1902 on eBay recently. They are probably still in the search if anyone wants to check them out. They were still in the micro-O slab, too. >> >>

Some people would rather have the counterfeit in a PCGS slab. They can always return it for the money, but how often do you find a counterfeit coin in a PCGS slab?

One more thing about those numbers. PCGS didn't begin putting the Micro O designation on the labels until 1998 or 99. There can be other examples in PCGS slabs as well that don't have the designation that aren't included in those numbers. >>

Conder, Leroy Van Allen has written that VAM 22 is counterfeit, thus adding the designation C for counterfeit. The extra 1 and 2 come from mintmark positioning.

Conder101 · June 30, 2006 6:42AM

Thank you, I'm not a VAMer so I didn't know that that was what the C meant.

messydesk · June 30, 2006 8:48AM

<< Thank you, I'm not a VAMer so I didn't know that that was what the C meant. >>

I suggested to Leroy that he use it as a prefix so as not to confuse it with die state designations. Also, the 22C1 and 22C2 should really have different numbers, since they're from different, albeit counterfeit, die pairs.

Counterfeit 1900-O Morgan

Comments

Leave a Comment