need help-- 1792 birch cent or......??

coachleonard · January 27, 2009 9:36AM

..or an old counterfeit? To me, simply does not look modern. Have had some pretty big names look at it (won't divulge who) and I have
gotten everything from a quick dismissal to a long scrutinization followed by "it's probably fake, but....", to "oh, that's a modern Royal Oak Gallery Mint copy" (what??). So if you all could take a look at it, and if you say it's counterfeit, then what specifically points to it being so. I should tell you that the edge is plain but has uniformly round circle indentions spaced out neatly all around the edge.

coachleonard · January 27, 2009 9:37AM

ok i goofed...here is the obverse. the reverse i did post in the earlier post.

291fifth · January 27, 2009 9:45AM

It could be a Gallery Mint copy that has been worked over to obliterate the "COPY" that would have been stamped into the reverse.

TomB · January 27, 2009 9:51AM

It does not look old and it also does not look real. The spacing of the lettering appears wrong. The image makes it look like it would be spotted easily as a fake.

windwhispersintrees · January 27, 2009 10:01AM

Based on own experience digging up old coins, that coin doesn't look right.
The "damage" is too uniform in size and location: large and small dings on both sides, all within the lettering/towards the center of the coin.
Typically, I find coins that maybe are damaged on one side only, or the damage may extend right out through the rim. Damage is never really uniform, unless it's a parking lot coin that's been run over or plowed across the pavement.

UTTM07 · January 27, 2009 10:05AM

What havoc we could create if we went around burying Gallery Mint (and other) reproductions!

coachleonard · January 27, 2009 10:19AM

I'm not saying a modern repo can't be beat up and treated.....but given the shape the obverse and ESPECIALLY the reverse is in, I can't imagine the amount of beating, battering, first degree assault with a poker, drowing in acid , bashing it with tools, running sandpaper over it repeatedly, it would take to get a Gem BU glossy Gallery Mint (or some such repo company) into this shape! Any theories as to why it could NOT be an old counterfeit? If indeed it is NOT the genuine article (and the bust is clearly skinnier than that on the plates of the original I have seen) why is it AUTOMATICALLY a modern replica--- that is what I have never gotten a satisfactory answer to.

Quarternut · January 27, 2009 10:34AM

To make an accurate determination I would need to see it "in hand". Trying to determine if a coin is a counterfeit by a picture has it's problems.

With that being said, It could be one of a number of things:

1. The real deal (highly unlikely, but you never know).

2. A cast counterfeit copy of the real thing (again, highly unlikely due to the chance of messing up an original coin).

3. An electrotype copy originally done in the 1870's - 1880's. (very likely, as there were many of these done of most of the 1792 pattern coins and there are very few examples known today).

4. A Gallery Mint reproduction that has been "aged" and damaged to cover up what it is (very likely, as this has been done to other Gallery Mint products)

5. A Chinese counterfeit that has been "aged" (another likely possibility).

Ship it to me and I can tell you my opinion, or send it in to one of the TPG's to have it authenticated.

I would need to study the die characteristics of the real coins as well as the Gallery Mint products to be able to help you anymore than that, and I can't right now as I have no access to my library at the moment.

QN

zeebob · January 27, 2009 10:48AM

No way is that surface real. This looks to me like a chemically aged coin. A recent Coin World series discussed this sort thing in the context of Chinese fakes. Artificial aging I think they called it.

Take it to an expert, but be prepared for some bad news.

drwstr123 · January 27, 2009 10:51AM

Copy.

coachleonard · January 27, 2009 11:37AM

to me it looks at least CLEANED with chemicals-- but anyone who can age a modern piece (again, take a look at that reverse especially) to look like THIS piece, certainly has my absolute admiration-- for their skills, if not their ethics. Maybe it's me, but I have scrutinized this piece endlessly, and nothing about it to me says "modern copy." I COULD buy 1870s-1880s counterfeit as one person has said-- cuz face it, my piece is NOT the match of the plates you see in Breen's or the Red Book. Also, the Jefferson Head Liberty Cap cent isn't an official Liberty Cap Cent and THAT piece is a highly collectible period piece! I guess THAT is the possibility I am wondering about---- could it A. be an experimental die from 1792 (as a lot of experimenting was going on around that time with various coin dies, planchets, edge lettering, etc) or B. could it be a Birch Cent equivalent of the Jefferson Head Liberty Cap cent?

But, Quarternut, I will take you up on your offer-- just as soon as I can figure out how the PM works to contact you! Thanks all

edix2001 · January 27, 2009 12:19PM

If quarternut has a problem identifying it, he can likely send it on to Mike Ellis, currently with Dominion Grading Service and previously with Gallery Mint Museum when they were striking the Birch cent historical reproductions.

Here's my Mike Ellis for ANA webpage.

coachleonard · January 27, 2009 3:11PM

hmmm, that's not a bad idea either...Gallery Mint (or Royal Oak Mint) could surely identify one of their own

need help-- 1792 birch cent or......??

Comments

Leave a Comment