Category Archives: Jack D. Young Reports

These post are written by expert numismatist and counterfeit detective Jack D. Young. He reports in an investigative manner on how to detect fake coins. See his posts to learn how to authenticate coins.

Fake “Droopy T” 1908-S Indian Cents

Posted on by

By Jack Riley

This article examines two counterfeit 1908-S Indian Head Cents identified from listings by a single seller on eBay . In addition to these examples, the same seller also offered a counterfeit 1877 Indian Cent alongside a small selection of genuine coins. It remains unclear whether the seller was aware of the inauthentic nature of these pieces. Presented below are images of the two counterfeit coins in question, along with a confirmed counterfeit specimen provided courtesy of NGC for reference.

Subject example #1
Subject example #2
Images Courtesy of NGC

This specimen is one I had previously encountered but had not formally documented until the preparation of this article. It is important  to mention the NGC example exhibits a different reverse from the other five examples illustrated, suggesting the existence of an extensive “Family” with interchanged dates paired with various reverses. This focus of this study is specifically on the 1908-S.

As illustrated in the comparative images below, all examples display several consistent repeating marks. Most prominently, a deformation of the “T”, in “LIBERTY”–wherefrom this counterfeit derived its informal moniker, the “Droopy T.” That serves as a key diagnostic.

Additional recurring characteristics include two incuse lines through the base of “AMERICA”, a raised dot right of “O” and a small spike protruding from the bust. The reverse has been observed paired with multiple obverse combinations, one of which is anticipated to be featured on Proxiblog in the near future.

 Additional examples–three in total–have surfaced on various online marketplaces, with some proving considerably more deceptive than their counterparts.

A detailed close-up collage below illustrates the previously noted repeating obverse diagnostics, including:

  • The distinctive “Droopy T” in STATES
  • Dot right of the letter “O”
  • Intersecting lines through the base of “AM”
  • Large prominent spike protruding from Liberty’s bust

Once again, this counterfeit family reminds me to advise newer collectors to follow these general guidelines:

  1. If you are ready to bid hundreds of dollars on a coin, resist buying a raw one and shop for one holdered by PCGS, NGC, ANACS and CAC.
  2. Be especially careful when purchasing raw coins from eBay and other online venues. TAI bots cannot detect counterfeits, so you are on your own.
  3. Make sure the seller takes returns and has good reviews. Also, the number of positive reviews is a good indicator. If someone has 0 sales or even fewer than 100, do not take a chance.
  4. Weigh the coin and go to PCGS CoinFacts for the date and mintmark, checking your coin against weights and dimensions.
  5. Read this article about detecting counterfeits.

If you like posts like this, you can read more articles on counterfeit coins by Jack Riley, Jack D. Young and Michael Bugeja at this URL. Also, please subscribe so you can get our weekly newsletter and be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has more than a thousand friends and followers on Facebook Coin Groups and thousands more across YouTube and social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.

You can find more information about errors and varieties as well as buying and bidding on coins in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider purchasing the work for yourself or a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist website. Thank you.

Not PCGS 2025 Silver!

Posted on by

Jack D. Young

Often, I joke about the counterfeiters apparently being ahead of the genuine releases–if not ahead, they are certainly keeping up with the latest “not-PCGS” slabbed fakes!

In this exclusive Proxiblog article I will review 3 really special 2025 “numismatic treasures” showing up in different selling venues.

So, without further ado I will start with a first strike 2025 230th anniversary flowing hair:

OK, so what is the issue with this one? Well, the 230th anniversary of the flowing hair dollar was 2024 and as noted the “year of issue”!!!

So, the following example actually came across the counter of a famous Chicago Coin Shop and a friend there posted it in one of our groups.

A counterfeit walks into a coin shop 😎…

These were also the subject of a short on another friend’s popular coin YouTube channel:

“Frostbyte Coins” short on the subject

Not to be outdone, eBay sellers jumped on the bandwagon as well…

eBay listed 2025 230 Anniversary “Medal Coin”

A second eBay listing

And of course, one more on the Bay:

And a 3rd bay listing at the time

One thing to notice, all sport different cert numbers versus many we have seen with common certs used; and the cert for the Chicago example pulls up as:

Pretty silly at this point…

And what’s next? How about the 2025-S First Strike proof Morgan set!

This example posted in a Face Book Group I sometimes visit:

FB Group post image

The answer to his question is “it’s fake!” and the cert number is actually for a 2022 Australian 50c piece! And again, not to be outdone another listed for sale on the Bay:

eBay listing of similar counterfeit 2025-S and fake PCGS slab

As most of these, the actual barcode on the label does not scan, but checking the cert number for the listed example (48248428) gives this result on PCGS’ cert website:

And what could possibly be next😎?

How about a 2025“PCGS” MS70 First Strike Silver Eagle? This from a FB group post as well:

Interesting, the cert comes up as:

PCGS on-line cert for 51841365 shows the coin type as “971094”

So, coin type 971094 in PCGS’ system is as follows:

PCGS definition of the 2025 First Strike

While 2025 (W) S1 silver eagles are designated as “971544”:

PCGS definition of the 2025 (W)  First Strike at West Point

I often state the counterfeiters are NOT Numismatists. (They are crooks.)

And finding a genuine (W) example to compare to shows the following differences on the obverse slab and label:

Counterfeit on left, genuine First Strike (W) on the right

So, the “Fun” never ends with the counterfeits, and one can only wonder what they have in store for 2026!

If you like posts like this, you can read more articles on counterfeit coins by Jack D. Young, Jack Riley and Michael Bugeja at this URL. Also, please subscribe so you can get our weekly newsletter and be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.

You can find more information about errors and varieties as well as buying and bidding on coins in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider purchasing the work for yourself or a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist website. Thank you.

1992/92-D Close scAM

Posted on by

Only a handful of 1992/92-D Close AM coins have been found in the past decades, making these high-value variations extremely desired and also relatively easy to dupe both the buyer and eBay (when sellers do not accept returns). In the video below, Proxiblog’s Michael Bugeja shows how a person can photograph the obverse of a typical 1992/92-D Wide AM and the reverse of a 1993-2000 Close AM and depict them side by side as if one coin.

Now comes the hard part for the unfortunate buyer. He receives a 1992/92-D Wide AM. He may not know the die markers (disclosed in the video) or he may, leaving him with the distressing chore of trying to explain die markers to eBay when the seller doesn’t accept returns. While arguing counterfeit with eBay sometimes works, good luck when it comes to die markers. This is why Proxiblog recommends never buying or bidding on unholdered rarities.

If you like posts like this, please subscribe so you can get our weekly newsletter and be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and social media. To get the latest discussion and commentaries, click here.

You can find more information about errors and varieties as well as buying and bidding on coins in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider purchasing the work for yourself or a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist website. Thank you.

Venus, a Comet, and Caesar’s Assassination

Posted on by

A few months after Julius Caesar was assassinated on the Ides of March 44 BC, a comet streaked through the skies, making him a god in his followers’ eyes.

Some historical background: On March 15, the great Roman statesman and reformer, Gaius Julius Caesar, was assassinated. The historical record notes his military brilliance as well as his less popular role in ending the Roman Republic.

The celestial object, now known as Caesar’s Comet (C/-43 K1), appeared in July of that year and was seen as a sign Caesar’s deification. 

The brilliant comet was visible for seven days. Romans interpreted the cosmic event as a sign that Caesar’s soul was ascending into the heavens and that he had joined the gods and Venus mother–a reference by the Roman poet Ovid.

Ovid describes the deification in Book 15 of his epic poem, Metamorphoses. In the passage, Venus takes Caesar’s spirit from his murdered body and carries it to the heavens, where she transforms it into a star.

This provided a propaganda occasion for Caesar’s adopted son, Octavian (who later became Emperor Augustus). He claimed to be a son of the now god Caesar, legitimizing his own rise to power.

The recognition had been put in place by Caesar before his death.

By placing Venus’s image on coins during his lifetime, Caesar had already reinforced his divine right to rule. Here are representative coins featured in a Coin Week article.

By imitating Caesar’s use of Venus in his own coinage, Octavian symbolically inherited not just his father’s name and legacy, but also his divine mandate.

Collectors covet these coins because of the heavenly history. They are pricey, too, because of the demand. Here is a retail example:

As with all coins, the marketplace is full of counterfeits. This is especially prevalent with Caesar’s military coins. His “Elephant” silver Denarius, minted circa 49–48 BC, typically weighs between 3.5 and 4.0 grams (commonly cited around 3.78g to 3.98g) and has a diameter of roughly 18mm. 

eBay is full of counterfeits, especially from China and Bulgaria. Etsy and Temu offer these as replicas and they have flooded the market as authentic with scammers counting on buyers not understanding how to detect fakes.

If you are unfamiliar with ancient coins, only purchase ones slabbed by NGC (the best for ancients):

If you do not know ancient coins and want to add a Caesar coin to your collection, bid on or buy an example holdered by NGC. Also note these attributes of fake ones:

  • Seams: A genuine ancient Roman coin was struck between two metal dies, not cast in a mold. Counterfeit coins that are cast often have a raised line or seam on the edge.
  • Soft details: Cast fakes tend to have a soft, “soapy,” or indistinct appearance, especially in the fine details of the portrait and lettering. Genuine struck coins show a much sharper impression, even if worn.
  • Uneven surface: Pores or small bumps on the coin’s surface can indicate that it was cast. These marks are caused by trapped air bubbles in the mold during the casting process.
  • Weight and size: Casting can cause metal to shrink. As a result, cast fakes are often slightly smaller and lighter than their genuine counterparts.
  • Artificial patina: Forgers often apply a chemical patina to make a coin look ancient.

Consider the difference between a genuine and fake Venus Caesar coin:

If you are interested in ancient coins, visit the portal Vcoins.

If you like posts like this, please subscribe so you can get our weekly newsletter and be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and social media. To get the latest discussion and commentaries, click here.

You can find more information about errors and varieties as well as buying and bidding on coins in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider purchasing the work for yourself or a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist website. Thank you.

A “New” 1898-S not-PCGS Morgan Dollar

Posted on by

By Jack D. Young

I have written a number of articles in several different venues about a scourge of counterfeit Morgan Dollars in fake “PCGS” holders including here on Proxiblog.

The subject of this short article features a newly discovered example and a known bad eBay seller and his other wares…

First, the bad seller. His 2 listings at this writing on the Bay are known bad ones including the stolen PCGS certification numbers:

Both were reported through their latest AI reporting process and removed.

His next one was previously sold last month and unfortunately, I missed it. The seller is now in a more prominent place on my bad seller list for periodic review.

And back a minute, the original source of these bad “coins” is actually in China (CN), and I continue to record new examples introduced to the marketplace in one of my Facebook Groups focused on counterfeits. And this one just hit my list this first week of September.

So, let’s review what makes this new one a counterfeit!

This one was sold as genuine, and someone got severely burned but apparently doesn’t know it:

Holy crap Batman, $786.01 for a counterfeit Morgan in a fake PCGS slab!

OK, we all say, “buy the coin, not the holder”; but I will start with the obvious, the holder. …

I know Proxiblog’s Michael Bugeja may have a comment, especially about fonts, as he is a journalist (wrong font again here for PCGS); but there also are a couple of “easy” observations without this one in hand.

There is no PCGS insignia in the lower right-hand corner, and the barcode is common gibberish for these: it will not read with my on-line scanner.

A screenshot of a computer AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Similar ones I have in-hand have the “PCGS” label stuck to the outside of the slab and won’t scan. And the notion it has a scannable chip shown on the reverse is false as well.

And what about the “coin”?

One place I always start is looking for the TPG cert number on-line for any descriptions and images!

And this example uses a genuine PCGS cert # with on-line genuine images:

And comparing the genuine example to the counterfeit reverse shows some obvious differences.

Images of the genuine certed example on the left, subject counterfeit on the right

The “S” is an obvious issue with this one; many of the current CN counterfeits use a common reverse which is one of the reasons I often start with the reverse on this type of counterfeit.

At first blush I can say I have not seen this specific reverse previously, but that will be another research project going forward.

For completeness I have also included an obverse comparison image of the genuine certed one to this one. The date font and surface scratches show as major differences between the two.

Images of the genuine certed example are on the left, and the subject counterfeit on the right.

So, definitely not a match! And on to another reason I focus on the reverse. As I always state attribution is a major step in the review process and I regularly look up the known genuine reverses in VAMWorld.

For those not familiar with a “VAM,” I quote the following from my friends at APMEX:

A VAM Morgan dollar is a Morgan die variety. VAM Morgan dollars and VAM Peace dollars were first identified by numismatists Leroy Van Allen and A. George Mallis in The Comprehensive Catalog & Encyclopedia of Morgan and Peace Dollars. 

VAM is an acronym for both authors’ last names, Van Allen and Mallis, and was adopted after the book was published. 

So I looked up this date and mint-mark on their site:

Image from VAMWorld on-line site

Sorting by the known reverses, there are 7 shown on their site and none a match to this subject example.

So, it seems the counterfeiters just continue to pump out fakes at a dizzying pace, including this one with the “fakes in fakes” using counterfeit PCGS slabs and stolen cert #’s. It does make one wonder what if anything PCGS is doing in response.

If you like posts like this, you can read more articles on counterfeit coins by Jack Riley, Jack D. Young and Michael Bugeja at this URL. Also, please subscribe so you can be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.

You can find more information about errors and varieties as well as buying and bidding on coins in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider purchasing the work for yourself or a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist website. Thank you.

Family of Fake 2 Cents

Posted on by

By Jack Riley

This 1868 2 Cent piece surfaced on a Facebook group and raised eyebrows. The coin didn’t appear as a genuine struck coin and sparked a conversation on the piece, as wont to happen on the platform, with comments proclaiming “fake” and others “get it graded” and so on.

This was the conversation piece:

Before we get into specifics here, some basics. Two cent coins were produced between the years 1864 to 1873. The denomination was introduced during the Civil War to address a coin shortage and filled the gap left by other denominations being hoarded. The 1964 two-cent coin was the first to use the motto, “In God We Trust.”

Back to the issue at hand. In my internet browsing I found yet another 1868 2 Cent piece that is a pretty clear cast counterfeit. Both share a common reverse which I would call the “Notched O.” Also, there is a small lump above “cents,” highlighted in red. It is worth mentioning the leaves are disconnected but not highlighted.

What could add to this “Family” you may ask? A fantasy date 1879! The Notched O is still represented however the small lump is gone. Green arrow points to the disconnected leaf referenced earlier. This example sports a small field lump below “OF” awell.

The addition of the 1879 shows that this can and will be “mix matched” with any date. It would be of no surprise if this already exists on every date of the 2 Cent series!

If you like posts like this, you can read more articles on counterfeit coins by Jack Riley, Jack D. Young and Michael Bugeja at this URL. Also, please subscribe so you can get our weekly newsletter and be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has hundreds of followers on Facebook Coin Groups. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.

You can find more information about errors and varieties as well as buying and bidding on coins in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider purchasing the work for yourself or a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist website. Thank you.

“NOT PCGS” Draped Bust $

Posted on by

By Jack D. Young

During a normal internet dumpster dive for counterfeits I spotted this listing on AliExpress–an obvious “Red Book Counterfeit”–due to the off-center bust design only used on a 1795 dated variety.

A “Red Book Counterfeit” refers to a fake coin that resembles a genuine U.S. coin as illustrated in the reference guide, “A Guide Book of United States Coins.” The Red Book serves as a comprehensive, annually updated price guide that provides detailed information on genuine U.S. coins. But counterfeiters, especially in China, use the volume as a design guide in manufacturing fakes.

As you might expect, AliExpress is owned by the Chinese company Alibaba Group, a multinational technology company that focuses on e-commerce, retail, internet, and technology (seemingly without a care about counterfeit coins).

Here is the AliExpress fake:

Past Ali listed 1796 PCGS draped bust dollar

Checking the PCGS cert number pulled this info up from their website:

PCGS on-line info for the labeled cert #

Not even close to the genuine one!

Comparison images to the genuine PCGS example for the cert #

So, considering a purchase I decided to message a question to the seller, “Lucy Coins Store,” which has been on Ali for several years. I was the first to report that this seller houses counterfeits in fake PCGS slabs!

And I sent the following note and received the following answer:

And another side note: I have purchased “coins” from the other sellers listed there and received refunds due to their being “not as described” and reported counterfeits.

I decided to purchase it and see what I would receive; and the fake did in fact look like the listed example.

Counterfeit received

Once in-hand, I started the return/ refund process through Ali; having talked with customer service there before they feign no tolerance for selling counterfeits on their venue. I was almost instantly informed my request was denied! So, I submitted another request:

A solution of “no refund” again. They called it “a new proposal.” So, I uploaded more in as much as they noted that I “rejected the solution of AliExpress”; well, yeah. …

And another rejection and so-called “solution”:

Actually, they do have a repeal process which I initiated and sent additional info:

In addition to the 2 side-by-side comparison images I sent this one trying to explain the issue!

Combination image of why this one is wrong!

And again, I was rejected; they did allow me to appeal again.

Appealed through their process

And rejected…

Best I can tell, they really didn’t care the coin is a counterfeit but that it was properly imaged in the listing.

Next step, take it to PayPal! There you can select that you received a counterfeit item and I sent all of the documents I had generated for the Ali report. Unfortunately, I received a pretty quick response that I hadn’t made my case adequately and had 3 days to add information or they would side with the seller.

So, I added some information about counterfeits, including how this bust design was only used for 1795 AND an image I had reported it through the Anti-Counterfeit Education Foundation.

And from there I waited, wondering if I would even get another response. And then:

And so, it ends with this one; it is interesting that when you click on the old sales link you get this, a similar but different counterfeit. But I am not willing to test me luck this time😎!

Latest Ali listing at same seller/ listing location as mine.

I realize that identifying this counterfeit took years of skill compounded by dogged persistence. Some collectors might not know how to identify fakes with die markers. But as Proxiblog’s Michael Bugeja often notes, the Chinese just can’t get the font right (nor understand how and when to use a hyphen [as in “off-center”].)

If you like posts like this, you can read more articles on counterfeit coins by Jack D. Young, Jack Riley and Michael Bugeja at this URL. Also, please subscribe so you can be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.

You can find more information about errors and varieties as well as buying and bidding on coins in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider purchasing the work for yourself or a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist website. Thank you.

Family of Fake Indian Cents

Posted on by

By Jack D. Young

A recent counterfeit Indian Head Cent listed on eBay from a larger seller sparked my interest–to the extent that I decided to investigate it, especially since the coin was shared to several Facebook groups.

I discovered a rather large “Family” sharing a common obverse. A “Family” is code for counterfeits with common markers among various dates. Most notably, I viewed the deformed denticles at 12 o’clock on the obverse and a raised lump left of “M-E.” The 1867 pictured below is from that larger seller.

The above example also shared a depression in the neck. I recalled seeing this in an NGC article published about 2013 or thereabouts. That article didn’t include these “common marks” rather more of a description of the surfaces.

After browsing online for sometime it was clear this was a very large “Family” and not limited to a few dates. Most examples were either key or semi-key dates but it would be expected this could be seen on common date Indian Cents.

This listing includes the Key date 1877! Along with another 1908s and two semi-key dates including 1866 and 1870. All images highlight the lump on the field between the feathers as well as the deformed denticles.

Some pieces aren’t as deceptive as others but many of these were already in collections! Stay diligent when looking for new coins to add to your collection and research extensively.

If you like posts like this, you can read more articles on counterfeit coins by Jack D. Young, Jack Riley and Michael Bugeja at this URL. Also, please subscribe so you can be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and social media. To get the latest discussion and commentaries, click here.

You can find more information about errors and varieties as well as buying and bidding on coins in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider purchasing the work for yourself or a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist website. Thank you.

Several Suspicious 1804 “Large Cents”

Posted on by

By Jack D. Young

Before discussing those suspicious cents, a quick definition of an electrotype–a copy of a coin formed by depositing metal onto a mold using electricity. Electrotypes are not considered genuine coins, but rather reproductions. When offered in auctions, they are fake coins.

Here is an example as an acknowledged electrotype sold in a Goldberg 2006 auction:

Images courtesy Goldberg Auctioneers

In the time span from this auction until August 2017, there was another acknowledged example reportedly sold in two different eBay auctions in 2016:

On Aug 2, 2017 another example with many of the matching obverse marks sold on eBay as an electrotype:

eBay Aug 2, 2017 Listed Electrotype Example

During the same time frame as this listing another one was running with matching marks but listed as genuine:

eBay Aug 2017 Listed Genuine Example
 eBay Aug 2, 2017 Listed Electrotype Example      eBay Aug 2017 Listed Genuine Example

Comparison of the latest eBay example listed as genuine to the documented electrotype example from the Goldberg’s 2006 auction shows the same “circulation” marks:

    eBay Aug 2017 Listed Genuine Example             Goldberg 2006 Auction Example- Electrotype

Comparison of the reverse images between these two yields similar results:

Both examples show the same marks and what appear as casting “bubble”/ defects on the surface, “casting” serious doubt that listed example is a genuine 1804 large cent. I sent the seller a number of messages, but I was too late to have him stop the auction.

eBay messages with the author

At the same time another early copper collector (unidentified) was also asking questions:

The weight listed as “11.7 grams” is a red flag as the standard was 10.89! Electrotypes regularly weigh more than a genuine example as a result of the base metal used. So it sold:

Sold as genuine on eBay 2017

The main difference between this and the Goldberg example is this one sold for a whole lot more. And an edge view would have given it away; an in-hand inspection would have been interesting to see if it was oriented correctly to a genuine 1804 large cent.

A genuine example has the reverse rotated as noted in the lot description of the “finest known” example in a past Stack’s Bowers auction:

“This die state is traditionally known as ‘Sheldon-266c,’ with substantial cuds over RTY of LIBERTY and MERIC of AMERICA, the last of the three main die states. Clash marks are seen at Liberty’s profile and throat, as well as under her hair bow. Breen describes this state as his state IV. Genuine specimens show the distinctive die rotation typical of this variety, with the reverse aligned roughly 45 degrees counterclockwise of proper coin turn.”

The Stack’s example showing the rotation of all genuine examples (and the die breaks of the late state):

1804 S-266 Cent from the Pogue Collection. Image courtesy Stack’s Bowers.

So, now the twist! I had the opportunity to purchase an example at auction this month. That one showed a provenance back to 1987 with a couple of giants in early copper previously owning it.

Reviewing the images, I confirmed it matched the others with the many common “sister marks” and it became a “must have,” not just for my collection but for the research and history of this one.

So, I won the auction and having it in-hand allowed for more observations to document these!

Author’s example and some of the eye-catching common marks!

I had the opportunity to weigh my example; it weighed 12.10 grams versus the mint standard of 10.89 grams.

I also was able to take good images of the edge and evaluate the die rotation of this “copy” versus a genuine one as images earlier with the genuine example:

Proper Die Rotation for this electrotype
Electrotype Edge of this one

And the final “twist”–back to the example sold as genuine in 2017; I decided to ask the seller about it now. He apparently mistook me for the buyer and sent this response.

Well, maybe justice, as they say Karma is a “b**ch.”

If you like posts like this, please subscribe so you can be informed whenever there is a new article.

Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and social media. To get the latest discussion and commentaries, click here.

You can find more information about errors and varieties as well as buying and bidding on coins in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider purchasing the work for yourself or a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist website. Thank you.

Fake Family of Type A Reverse Peace Dollars

Posted on by

By Jack Riley

Today we discuss an extensive family of Type A fake reverse Peace Dollars, otherwise known as the 1921 High Relief reverse. We will investigate minor differences in the Type A and B (“Low Relief”) reverses whose diagnostics are key in identifying counterfeits.

First, some background: About 35,401 business strike High Relief 1922 Peace dollars were produced. All but one were melted. Also, 10-20 High Relief proof 1922 coins were made. These are not included in our discussion. Type B reverses appear on Peace dollars dated 1922-28 and 1934-35.

On the 1921 Type A reverse there are 4 rays below “ONE” and on the Type B reverse there are three. Secondly the shape of the leaf cluster is dramatically different. There are other subtle changes but we will use these two as the quick identifiers.

Now onto the “Fake Family”! This is an extensive group of counterfeits spanning various dates with improbable die pairings. The first image is the author’s example with highlighted markers in red. View the strong spread of one, small circular and raised lump between the rays below “L,” and a raised flaw below R. There are additional small depressions in many letters but minute.

The next set of images are dated “1921” and from various online sources.

The next image was offered on Ebay by a seller who genuinely wasn’t aware the coin was counterfeit. The listing received a number of bids! I messaged the seller and had a brief discussion and they removed it. Owner stated it had been in the family’s collection since the late 1990’s.

On to our “1921” dated pieces. This is an image from fellow counterfeit researcher Jack Young.

Various dates have been seen mismatched with this common reverse.

Behold one of the more fascinating pieces below. A fellow collector friend Winston Zack shared his 1925 showcasing the common counterfeit reverse and the catch? This piece scanned as 63.5% copper, 28.3% zinc, 7% nickel, 1.2% silver, and traces of iron!

Finally to round out this article, we present two matching counterfeit 1921 Peace Dollar in fake PCGS holders! One which was offered for sale through a Facebook group.

So once again a few of these bypassed numerous collectors who already purchased them or were in the process of doing that. Proxiblog hopes this information gets disseminated so no one purchases any of these counterfeit Peace Dollars!

If you like posts like this, you can read more articles on counterfeit coins by Jack Riley, Jack D. Young and Michael Bugeja at this URL. Also, please subscribe so you can be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.

You can find more information about errors and varieties as well as buying and bidding on coins in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider purchasing the work for yourself or a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist website. Thank you.