Jack D. Young for Proxiblog
So I previously wrote a Coin Week article on attributing a counterfeit 1893-O Morgan Dollar and noted the high bad feedback eBay seller:
Counterfeit 1893-O Morgan Dollar: A Diagnostic Case Study
That same seller also sold 2 mixed rolls of small cents faced with an apparent 1857 Flying Eagle cent to a Face Book friend; it turned out the FE is a known counterfeit, and the new owner posted them and the link to my Coin Week article about them!
The OP noted the counterfeit “tells” for this style counterfeit on his example (circled in red) referencing the Coin Week article attributions.
Bottom image of the OP’s FB post on the subject
Image from the referenced Coin Week article showing other examples with the matching marks:
Counterfeit 1857 Flying Eagle Cents You Should Avoid | CoinWeek
While reviewing the article for images (I often go back to my own published article for reference while researcher subject “coins”!) I noticed the OP had posted a comment which I responded to.
So, purchased in 2023 and now aware as a result of the article! Ironically the article was published in 2023 as well…
Comments from the subject Coin Week article
2023 and the seller is still “at large” ! I immediately found another listing from him for a similar roll, documented his images and then worked to “win” the auction.
Recent identical eBay roll listing- I won!
So all I had to do was wait for this to be delivered. I was already planning how to document what it is once in-hand, taking images as I worked to uncover the detail I thought would match my friends, but that turned to be too easy a thought…
I was initially pretty confident I would see the “Bad T” in UNITED, but that documented attribution point wasn’t there!
Image from my microscope of my FE in the roll
OK, so what, did the seller actually slip a genuine example in the roll? My plan was failing so I just carefully unwrapped the whole roll and then imaged the contents:
And the FE? 1st thing of note is he is using repeated stock images; mine was positioned differently relative to the roll:
Listing image of the roll on the left, received on the right- date not apparent
And once removed from the roll I immediately recognized it after digging through my article:
Coin received is actually the 2nd counterfeit documented in the article, as noted:
Additional article images
So, now again confident he slipped a counterfeit into the roll I decided to send him a message. My previous attempts on the 1893-O Morgan failed because he doesn’t accept messages but apparently does when a current purchased item is linked.
Yeah, right. … But he did immediately refund my purchase price without involving eBay- a surprise for sure given all of his past responses to negative feedback given.
And he then listed another one, but I found I am now banned by him for any future listings.
Keeping it real, Jack.
If you like posts like this, 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.
