130 year old counterfeit Morgan?

bottleguy · March 16, 2010 12:42PM

A friend of mine was recently digging for bottles in piles of dirt from a construction site in San Francisco and found a 1882 CC Morgan. These piles came from San Francisco Bay fill and contained nothing but trash dumped into the Bay during the 1880s and 1890s. I examined his Morgan, and realized it was a little light in weight. Sure enough, we weighed it on a balance scale against a genuine Morgan and it weighed much less. It's definitely a counterfeit. My question is, how rare were counterfeit Morgans from this time period? Who were making them and why? Does anybody have any info on these, or could lead me to a website with more info?

Thanks,

Rick

AUandAG · March 16, 2010 1:08PM

The SF bay is salt water. Salt water and silver do not mix and the coin could very well
be less in weight by the reaction of the salt with the silver. Would love to see the pics
and a weighing on a digital scale. There can be a .2 gram difference due to mint tolerances.
.1 high and .1 low. Your subject coin may have been minted on the lowside whereas your
compare piece may be on the high side.

Post the pics when you can.
bob

GoldenEyeNumismatics · March 16, 2010 1:52PM

post pics!

bottleguy · March 16, 2010 1:56PM

Thanks for your thoughts, but this is definitely not a genuine Morgan... I could feel the weight difference just by tossing it up and down in my hand.... additionally, when dropped (from a low height) on a wooden table it does not have that silver "ring" sound.... just a dull "thud". The surface of the coin has "reverse" pitting under 10x magnification, and the color is off. He has the coin, but I should be able to get some decent pics of it soon. Here's a few he took, but they are not the best....

DorkGirl · March 16, 2010 2:54PM

Ship wreck affect.

TwoSides2aCoin · March 16, 2010 3:57PM

Some of the extruded metal on the reverse indicates an electrotype. I think a cast counterfeit wouldn't normally have extruded metal, whereas the electrolytic counterfeiting method could. The pitting is a sign of one thing (eroding of pot metal) , but the extrusion is a clue to the type of counterfeit, isn't it ?
Are there "bumps" , or is this just an illusion ?
edit to add:
Oh, and do I see a seam on the edge ?

Steve27 · March 16, 2010 6:56PM

This may help LINK; scroll down to the section on US Silver Dollars, there are a lot of links to other sources.

dsessom · March 16, 2010 10:00PM

<< <i>My question is, how rare were counterfeit Morgans from this time period? Who were making them and why? >>

A dollar in 1882 would be the equivalent to over $100 today. Here is a page that lets you compare the value of any amount of money, and compare values from 1774 to present.

Hyperion · March 16, 2010 10:13PM

someone experimenting with fakes tossing it into a "landfill"... go figure.

interesting. you sure of the ..uh... provenance?

CaptHenway · March 16, 2010 11:44PM

Looks like a typical contemporary counterfeit to me. Probably cast in zinc.
TD

johnny9434 · March 17, 2010 1:41AM

That one is way sad

I'd say a zinc phoney

Lewy · March 17, 2010 1:54AM

The leaves on both the olive branch and the wreath are all wrong. Definitely not genuine.

PerryHall · March 17, 2010 1:59AM

I would think that zinc would be too light. I would guess some type of pot metal with lead alloy to give it a weight closer to silver.

LanLord · March 17, 2010 2:38AM

If it was a contemporary counterfeit, from San francisco, why was there a CC instead of a S mintmark?

CaptHenway · March 17, 2010 2:40AM

<< <i>If it was a contemporary counterfeit, from San francisco, why was there a CC instead of a S mintmark? >>

Um, coins do circulate beyond the cities in which they are struck............

bottleguy · March 17, 2010 3:22AM

I am absolutely sure this coin is from the 1880s-1890s. I have been to these piles, they were excavated from a construction site and consist of nothing but trash and fill from that era, in what we call "Bay Mud". This is trash that was thrown into the Bay off of the many wharfs which lined the Bay, until the area was reclaimed (filled in with rubble) after the 1906 quake.

Due to the fact that this coin is not genuine, we opted for a little electrolysis to clean it up and it cleaned up nicely. The pictures above were taken before cleaning. I'll get pictures of it cleaned tomorrow. It was not cast. It has a full reeded edge with no indication of any seams. There are small places where the metal has eroded away, especially around the edge. Under 10x magnification, it does not appear to be plated, but some solid alloy. The color is off.... it's shinier than silver with a darker, steel looking color. There is reverse pitting (like from a pitted die) over most of the surfaces on the obverse and reverse.

I hope this helps to describe it a little better. I'm sure this is not a modern fake.

Thanks,

Rick

Lewy · March 17, 2010 3:54AM

Actually Rick, nobody suggested that it was a modern counterfeit. The term 'contemporary counterfeit' refers to a coin counterfeited at or around the date on the coin (if that is what you are responding to).

SaorAlba · March 17, 2010 5:41AM

Let us not forget the Micro-O counterfeits, several of which made it into TPG holders years ago before someone determined a give away gouge in a flat area that was common to every one of the fakes even of different dates.

130 year old counterfeit Morgan?

Comments

Leave a Comment