Numismatic posts about grading, identifying, buying, selling and bidding on coins
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My friend and half cent guru Ed Fuhrman alerted me to this one on eBay. His PM stated “I think someone just posted one of the super fake 1806 C-1 half cents on eBay. Take a look.”
I did and they did.
I have actually written two articles about these fakes for these EAC’s Penny-Wise as well as a couple for Coin Week and now this one for Proxiblog.
The subject coin is interesting as one of the very deceptive group of counterfeits I have been chasing down the rabbit hole since late 2015. This was one we saw in the 1st group of certified genuine fakes from a known CN connected buyer and group of sellers operating out of College Station Texas; I have discussed this group in many previous articles…
The listing of the subject:
eBay listing- counterfeit 1806 C-1 half cent
Yep, I made an offer knowing what this is; I chose not to discuss it upfront with the seller as I didn’t want to influence him while considering my lower offer.
I quickly marked up the posted image of the reverse with four known counterfeit tells, or attribution points for these. Done from memory, this one is burned into my mind as I owned five examples at the time with four being in TPG holders as genuine. And 14 total examples documented to date.
Subject reverse marked with 4 major attribution points of the counterfeits
So, no doubt what this one is, it is the 1st I had seen in the wild in a couple of years! I anxiously waited to see how the seller would respond to my offer.
Not for the listed price, but a fair price for what it is! And then waited to actually have it in-hand so that I could message the seller and start a conversation:
Messages through eBay with the seller after the sale
Interesting he stated this example “is from a Boston area old, abandoned coin shop”; he later stated he purchased it from the cleaning lady who cleaned the basement and painted for the owners two or three years ago.
And a nice image of this one including the edge:
Combination image of this featured example
And in-hand the main reverse attribution points for these from my microscope:
So, a good time to add some details on these from one of my previous articles:
Interestingly, there are 2 “varieties of this reverse”; apparently the counterfeiters tried a repair!
And an image of the 1st die state of the common reverse:
Reverse image from my article draft
And what about the obverse?
Obverse image from my article draft
Just an amazing number of common marks including a couple of light scratches noted! These are seen across both reverse die states.
So this example became the 6th one in my mini-hoard- talk about deep into the rabbit hole! And just a side note, I had several examples sent out for XRF testing of the metal and found them to have high levels of zinc in them, the only ones to test with that result against all of the other early copper coins we tested. Maybe the counterfeiters melted some later date Lincolns in their mix for planchets?
I did leave positive feedback for the seller but did note the coin is counterfeit.
So, I thought this the end of the story, but NO, as my articles often take a twist at the end!
And again, it was Ed who sent me a late Friday night link and said I really would like this one:
eBay listing over the weekend
I pulled up the listing and was literally shocked at the posted images!
And the special NGC label; apparently “traderbea” is a premier shop on whatnot.
eBay listing images
Look familiar?
Great images posted show all the “details”! No question what this one is and it is certified genuine by the TPG.
A quick note to my contact at the TPG resulted in an amended on-line cert:
Certainly makes it harder to sell if anyone considering a purchase takes the time to look…
Contacting the seller and discussing the issues lead to an agreement on a purchase; he had a buy-back guaranty through the whatnot dealer and of course the TPG has an authenticity guaranty as well so it is on its way to join the “Dark Side Collection.” Digging deeper into the abyss, two in a week !
And this one is recent and slipped past both an established coin dealer and a top tier TPG, and that just goes to show how deceptive they are. So maybe my 5th published article will help. …
Ended eBay listing
And I will have to update my image of the TPG certified examples in the collection!
Author’s image of 4 certified examples
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 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.
I have written a number of articles on fake Morgan Dollars in fake PCGS holders but now the latest from China (CN) are counterfeit large cents in fake NGC holders!
I was alerted to three bad listings in a coin forum I frequent, with one already showing sold. All listed on the Bay, all had the standard eBay answer they were A-OK, but they are not OK.
In all listings the seller cut-off the cert number on the label of the fakes, but the genius left enough of the barcode to scan. And unlike the PCGS Morgan fake slabs, the barcodes do scan properly!
So, starting with the “1840,” I show the Bay listing, the cert for the genuine one, and a comparison of the CN counterfeit to the genuine example.
One note I would like to make, when NGC receives information that a cert of theirs has been compromised with a counterfeit, they “nuke” the cert with a note “possible counterfeit holder” which can help someone considering a purchase if they just take the time to look it up. The certs for these three have all been reported and nuked and these are the images I will use in this discussion.
Recent eBay listing of a counterfeit 1840 large cent
The following shows the updated NGC cert and the comparison of the slabbed image of the listed counterfeit and the genuine example.
Next, the “1844”; same seller shipping from China:
Recent eBay listing of a counterfeit 1844 large cent
1844 comparison image of counterfeit, left; genuine example, right
And “last,” the “1846.” This is the initial example shown sold from the coin forum discussion.
Recent eBay listing of a counterfeit 1846 large cent
And the updated cert and comparison to the genuine example; WOW, MS61???
All three showed sold, and all appear to have been removed from the Bay after the fact. The 1840 actually showed as:
Kudos to NGC for so quickly addressing the issue! As far as the coins themselves, the1844 and 1846 are from the “smashed dentils” obverse family, the 1840 “crescent chip obverse” family from my previous Coin Week article, “It’s a Jungle out There! Later Date Large Cent Counterfeits.”
But as usual for these articles there is a twist! Reviewing the seller for any new items revealed another one, this a bad 1855 in bad NGC slab…
Counterfeit ”1855” on the left, genuine example on the right
And another comparison shows these are not even close!
And one common good “tell” for these holders is the size of the prongs!
Going back to check on the seller resulted in this, “No longer registered user”:
“NRU’ed”, I went back to the sold items and although you can see them, they have ALL been removed when you actually click on the links. eBay apparently put the hurt on this seller after the fact. This “1857” would have been interesting to see as it stated PCGS!
Apparent sold and removed later large cent counterfeit from the same seller
What another strange “twist”! I have been a very loud critic of eBay over the last several months about their apparent lack of caring about the number of counterfeits currently allowed for sale there. AND the inability of having obvious bad counterfeits removed through their “new and improved” reporting process. This lead to my latest Live Coin Q&A podcast premiered May 27 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57HwefhVn_k
It seems rather ironic after previously receiving responses like the following one on these fakes that the day after the podcast all of these including the active listings and the seller were removed!
eBay response to my report of the bad 1844 not NGC large cent
So ends another episode of my Facebook group, Fun with Fakes (FwF’s) and Proxiblog; it continues to be really hard to keep up with all the ways the counterfeiters are challenging the Hobby but we will continue to release content like this in an effort to help!
I wonder how many Proxiblog readers have heard of the term “Pickle Barrel large cent”? Let’s check with AI about the definition:
These large cents, minted between 1793 and 1857, were significantly larger than regular pennies. Legend has it that people would throw these coins into pickle barrels to create a deeper green on their pickles. The acidic solution caused the coins to develop green and blue-green patina.
“Google” the term to learn more!
Now that we explained that, on to the star of this post, a TPG certified “mint error” 1853 Large Cent. And unlike many I document in this series, maybe not technically a counterfeit unless attempted to be sold as stated on the label.
Image from NGC’s on-line cert site
This was pedigreed from the “Mervis Collection,” a huge collection of US large cents. This particular coin is documented sold through the Heritage 2014 FUN “Signature Auction,” which included 879 lots with both PCGS and NGC certified coins. And the coin description according to Heritage:
Images courtesy HA on-line auction archives
A difference of opinion between the TPG and the Auction House isn’t unusual in my opinion.
NGC describes it as an 1853 obverse half of split planchet and a mint error, while HA states it is the resulting reverse half from when the coin split after striking and separated during circulation. HA also cites the weight as 13.48 grams–what, with the holder? (Actually that is the original weight of 1793 through 1795 thick planchet cents.)
Regardless they both see it as part of a split planchet; fortunately, NGC recorded the weight as “6.7 g”, with the standard weight of an 1853 cent at 10.89, so a little more than a half of a cent.
What is this article about then, apart from a disagreement between two experts? Remember the pickle barrel? I sent images of one as well as posted on a couple of forums, inquiring if the split planchet “theory” made sense.
A friend and early copper dealer (the one who owned this coin recently) described it as “just a pickled coin; it was let to sit in vinegar which caused the obverse and part of the reverse to corrode that way.”
Three other early copper experts all stated acid etched, acid and/ or a pickle jar coin.
My two error experts went on record. One stated that the coin shows no striation signs of a split planchet. “I’ve never known a split-after-strike error to leave a coin with radial striations,” he said. “It looks altered to me.”
My go-to early copper friend stated:
“This looks like a classic example of a ‘pickle’ cent. Sat obverse side down in a barrel of pickles. The vinegar acid etches the down side much more than the top side. The radial lines are created by the bubbles that slowly move from the center of the bottom side (obverse in this case). Supposedly copper cents were used this way to create a bright green color on the pickles. Might be bullpucky but I wasn’t there when this was done.”
Fact is, any prolonged mild acid bath will have a similar effect on a cent. I have seen dozens over the past 60 years.
But to the point. I looked to other EAC Members to offer images of others so “processed.”
A friend offered the following image of his:
A friend’s image of his example appears above. (Guess which one!)
Now his comment: “I didn’t bother with photo of reverse but it’s about the same as obverse. Notice the ridges near the denticles, a sign of acid erosion.”
And while researching information for this article I ran across another apparent example in a forum I frequent.
Notice the obvious size difference compared to an 1852 example. AND, the radial lines emanating from the center!
So, what about an actual “split planchet”? Well, NGC wrote an article about them:
Images from the NGC on-line article
And from a prominent early copper dealer’s listing as a “split planchet”:
And one more off the Bay:
Current eBay listing as an “obverse split planchet error
And I do NOT see any of the radial striations on any of these actual split planchet examples!
So, with subject coin now in-hand, I would like to start with the specifications for a “normal” example from PCGS CoinFacts:
PCGS CoinFacts image of 1853 large cents
And again, 10.89 grams standard weight for the series and a diameter of 27.50 mm.
And the subject coin’s diameter? Well, I think the following image is visually pretty telling:
Subject example on the left, a “normal” 1851 NGC certified large cent on the right
The subject example scales at approx. 25 mm versus the standard of 27.50. As a friend stated, “shrunk,” NOT split…
I do wonder what the TPG was looking at during certification! Maybe the flip envelope accompanying the coin?
The TPG was notified of my findings on May 2, 2025. So far, no change to the on-line cert by their “error expert.”
Stay tuned.
If you like posts like this, please go to Jack Young’s page on Proxiblog. 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.
A favorite counterfeit of mine, Gobrecht Dollars are among the most coveted coins by veteran collectors. For those unfamiliar with the series, these dollars were minted in the United States in 1836, 1838 and 1839. These coins were designed by Christian Gobrecht, the third Chief Engraver of the US Mint.
I published one article in the LSCC’s Gobrecht Journal and two articles for Coin Week. I also included it in my recent Live Coin Q & A podcast on my Top 5 most deceptive counterfeits ( YouTube 5 counterfeits ).
Ironically the day after the podcast aired, I received a message from a friend attending the Georgia Numismatic Association’s Coin Show, where he saw a raw example in a dealer’s inventory listed for $12.5K! This example appears to be a dead ringer for mine with many (red) circled common marks. The black circled mark is a good identifier for this example.
A friend’s personal images of the subject example from GA
I am not mentioning the dealer’s name here, but I did see he is listed as having a table at this month’s Chicago Central States Coin Show, so I planned to take the opportunity to hopefully see this one “in-hand” and take some closer images.
The back story of this one is interesting. My friend actually owned the genuine repaired source coin and contacted me after seeing my initial article on these. He is drawn to Gobrechts and like me is on a budget, so the best examples are typically out of reach, but this one fit the bill for him initially. He is always on the lookout for another and spotted one at a coin show back in 2021. Comparing it to his and images from my article he explained to the dealer, I was convinced this was one of the bad ones. He was invited to the dealer’s shop after the show where they could perform a better review in that setting.
He shared the following cool images, having the source example next to a clone at the same time!
Documented genuine repaired source coin on the left, subject raw example on the right
As in images from my articles, you can clearly see the discolored/ repaired area above the head of his NGC certed example. Interestingly you can also see the dark identifier mark on the subject example as I showed to start this article!
And the NGC certification states: “FINE DETAILS PLUGGED”.
Reverse image comparison; there is another unique marker on the subject example, a large reverse scratch:
And a combination image of the subject example:
Subject example images from the same friend
Notice I am calling both the 1st set of images from one dealer and the 2nd from another THE subject example! They both share the common details of the struck clone counterfeits, but both have the 2 unique identifiers as noted…
And back to the “back story: the dealer in the 2021 discussion stated he intended to get his money back from the dealer he purchased it from, roughly $10K.
So, with both dealers listed at tables at this year’s Central States Coin Show, I always plan to attend for the past 3 or so years, I decided to wait for that opportunity.
My plan was to see both dealer’s there, but especially the one likely to currently own it. Going to his table the 1st day was disappointing as he just had coin boxes in his display cases and nothing to actually view.
So, I went to the dealer who reportedly had it in 2021. When he was free to talk I showed him my example, which currently is in a TPG holder as genuine.
Author’s example from China
My example is a virtual marked twin for the subject one, but after studying it a bit this dealer stated he had never seen an example with so many marks.
Passing past the other dealer’s table resulted in nothing, as he still had nothing displayed; so the show ended for the 1st day without spotting the counterfeit. I decided I would go to his table the next morning and if he still had nothing displayed, I would ask about the coin.
Back to the dealer in the morning and nothing new with his case, so I introduced myself and said I understood he may have an 1836 Gobrecht. He said he did and dug it out of a box. Listed for $12.5 K it is the same coin seen by my friend in Georgia a couple of weeks ago. In hand, I asked if I could take some images of it for better viewing and he said OK. Taking them, I thanked him and went to an open area to review the images, my example and images from my Coin Week article. No mistaking it, one of the clones. Now how to have to tell him.
I created the collage of the major counterfeit attribution marks and his coin for this article:
Attribution points image from my article
Subject counterfeit example at dealer’s table (my bad images!)
I loaded my article on my phone and went back to his table waiting for it to be clear of any customers. I then told him I didn’t want to be a pain, but wondered if anyone had ever suggested the Gobrecht is counterfeit. He said no, “especially with where it came from.” I then showed him his images I took, my coin and the clear repeating attribution marks of the fakes.
He then stated who he bought it from and that he knew who that dealer had purchased it from as well.
We shook hands and he put the coin away as I left.
So, these deceptive counterfeits keep surfacing, sometimes where you may least expect them. They are the gift that just keeps on giving…
I did send an email to the 1st dealer from 2021 on this one, but so far no response–stayed tuned!
Best as always, Jack for Proxiblog!
If you like posts like this, please go to Jack Young’s page on Proxiblog. 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.
Is it me, or has eBay gotten worse recently with bad listings and counterfeits? Their “reporting” feature seems to just be a façade.
I use the Bay as a counterfeit research tool and post about fakes in several Face Book Groups. Recently I posted an obvious bad fake in a fake “PCGS” slab and asked folk to report it as such to eBay through their standard process.
I had a huge response, with NO ONE getting a favorable return; it seems no matter what, the resulting response was … ”We looked into your report and didn’t find the listing to be in violation of our policy.” These are noted as either by their “AI,” which I call the “BayBots,” or the unknown “customer service agent.” A real shame, as eBay did have a method for a select group to direct report bad listings, and I can confirm MANY listings were removed daily, but that channel has apparently dried up.
To illustrate the current state of the Bay, view the following image of listings found via a standard search for “1881-CC Morgan Dollars,” chosen due to proliferation of counterfeits with that date and mintmark:
A brief description of what is shown here:
#1 is a bad CN counterfeit in a fake PCGS holder; it clearly doesn’t match the genuine example shown on the PCGS site and uses the latest scam, a GreatCollections sticker from an actual auction. I reported this, but a second listing for the same fake showed up from a different seller. This, too, was reported as fake.
I previously wrote an article on this latest scam for Proxiblog and the same coin, different seller (now-counterfeit-greatcollections-labels); the counterfeit’s QR code takes one to the PCGS CN site for the cert, the GC QR takes one to their auction for the genuine example. Comparison image as follows:
Chinese counterfeit, left, and genuine “GC sold” example, right
And #’s 2 and 3, again examples shown shipping from China, these use stock images of genuine coins to sell their fakes.
I have direct experience with these type listings, having purchased a large cent with images of a genuine example in the listing only to receive a common current CN counterfeit. The seller offered a return with shipping costing more than I paid for the “coin.”
#4 is another of the bad CN counterfeit Morgans in a fake PCGS holder. I have written articles as well as participated in an on-line podcast discussing these as they proliferate eBay and other sites currently.
This particular example and listing was reported several times and repeatedly eBay responded it was OK; listing finally ended only to have the seller relist it unchecked for another round.
Relisted/ current Bay listing
The genuine PCGS coin is shown on their cert site with an image that this one isn’t even close to, but it was still active for sale on the Bay.
#’s 5 and 6 are more of a CN seller’s listings using genuine stock images of someone else’s coin and listing. I personally would pick #6 to purchase because it is 4 cents cheaper.
And #7! This seller has a whole boatload of fakes labeled as “Commemorative Coins”; give me a break eBay!
Multiple bad listings from the same Bay CN seller
And his description of his “1885-CC”:
Seller’s listing description
I reported the listing and the seller multiple times and apparently the Bay approves of both.
And so, #8, the real “star” of this group! Another of the “Morgan” Morgan fakes in a counterfeit PCGS holder. This one is currently posted on my personal Face Book page and is also being mass reported by my friends:
Current eBay listed bad “Morgan” Morgan
We have been notified that the listing is A-OK, evidenced by this response to my report:
This all does lead one to wonder if eBay has changed its “Coin Policy” without actually formally stating it, as ALL of these types of listings were previously considered violations? Good for the sellers, bad for the buyers? And what affect does it have on the Hobby at this time? I suppose one can only speculate.
One thing that is not speculation–at one time listings could be reported and REMOVED. And the following are images of fake coins identified in one day’s effort:
Is this a sign of the times for eBay or did someone just fall asleep at the wheel? We’ll continue to watch and report “more fun with fakes” for Proxiblog as we see them!
If you like posts like this, please go to Jack Young’s page on Proxiblog. 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 other 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.
