A recent eBay listing of a counterfeit 1909-S VDB cent sparked me to look at the rest of this particular seller’s offerings. They had nearly half of a dozen 1881-S Morgan Dollars along with a few counterfeits of other series. The 1881-S is a relatively common coin and easily found in high mint state grades; one wouldn’t expect to stumble across a counterfeit. The first image is of one of the represented coins.
A comparison of three of the coins tells the tale. Given the scratches, dings and random “circulation” marks, this isn’t a mix up of images. There are three separate coins.
Anyone who does a lot of variety attributions of Morgan Dollars will know that 1881-S is a difficult year to attribute and generally won’t be done just by a glance like some dates. All examples from this eBay seller exhibit the same repeated contact marks.
Notable obverse marks:
Line through S
Surface scratch left of U
Small surface mark between right star 5 and 6
Notable reverse marks:
Small scratch below the base of S
Field dot between U-N and above U
Minute surface flaws between E-D
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 other venues. 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.
The most counterfeited coin is the 1909-S VDB; but the 1914-D Lincoln Cent actually has a smaller surviving population. This makes the 1914-D a prime target for counterfeiters.
The 1914-D Lincoln cent, scarce in high grades, is often faked by altering dates (i.e. 1944-D) or adding mint marks.
Look for a large gap between the “9” and the second “1” in date. 1944-D cents are commonly altered to appear as 1914-D cents, but this leaves too much space between the first two digits and the last two digits.
See this example from NGC:
Weight is important. a genuine 1914-D should weigh in at 3.11 grams. Counterfeits are usually lighter or heavier based on the metal used for the fake coin.
Key die markers include a diamond-shaped or crisp “D” mint mark.
Here is what an authentic D mintmark should look like:
Here is a counterfeit mintmark:
Let’s see them together so you can tell how to identify a counterfeirt:
The genuine mintmark is crisp; the counterfeit, mushy.
Compare the position and shape of the mintmark to known genuine examples. Added “D” counterfeiters often use wrong mintmark style and position. Example:
Also look for evidence of die polishing, especially on Lincoln’s coat lapel, common for this date.
Finally, authentic 1914-D cents do not have VDB anywhere. Those initials used to appear on the reverse in some 1909 cents; but that was removed because it called too much attention to itself. No designer initials appear in 1914. The VDB was restored under the shoulder of Lincoln in 1918.
If you have any doubt about a raw 1914-D, do not purchase it because of the predominance of counterfeits. Spend your money on a slabbed example from PCGS, ANACS, CAC or NGC. If you have a raw 1914-D Cent, send it in for authentication. That will ensure a sale when you are ready to sell.
If you like posts like this, subscribe so you can be informed whenever there is a new article or column.
Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups and across social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.
You can find more information about types, varieties, errors, grading, bidding and buying in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider buying or gifting the work for a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist blog. Thank you.
Increasingly, hobbyists are relying on artificial intelligence to identify fake coins exported by the hundreds of thousands by manufacturing facilities in China. Too often, however, AI is wrong, relying on false training data from the internet.
Machine and numismatist analyze fake coins according to different protocols. AI relies on images scraped from the internet. Its learning models rely on high-resolution images so that it can analyze subtle flaws in surface detail, texture, and edge features that are difficult to replicate.
But what if high-resolution images are not available or, in worst case scenarios, doctored via photography software?
This is why human intelligence trumps machine intelligence. Before we proceed two definitions are in order. What is a Contemporary Circulating Counterfeit and what is a Modern Forgery?
A Contemporary Circulating Counterfeit (CCC) is a coin that was illegally produced during the same period as the genuine issue and entered everyday commerce alongside authentic coins. CCCs were often made to mimic official currency closely enough to pass in trade, and they typically show signs of real circulation, regional wear patterns, and period-appropriate alloy substitutions. Many CCCs are now valued by collectors for their historical context, diagnostic quirks, and the insight they offer into economic conditions and minting practices of their time.
In contrast, a Modern Chinese Forgery refers to a deceptive replica produced in recent decades—often using CNC machining or digital dies—with the intent to defraud collectors or simulate numismatic value. These forgeries frequently match regal weight and dimensions too precisely, use non-period alloys like Fe/Ni or German Silver, and may feature fantasy legends, artificial toning, or blank or overly sharp edges. Unlike CCCs, they show no genuine circulation history and are typically absent from community catalogs like CCC–Good Ones.
I am cataloging here for Proxiblog sophisticated techniques that counterfeit detectives use in identifying fakes.
Here are the methods.
For Historical Contemporary Circulating Counterfeits
1. Edge diagnostics (third side) show hand-cut, irregular milling, or worn reeding consistent with circulation and non-regal production.
2. Weightslightly off regal specs, often 5–10% under, but consistent across known examples (families of fakes) and plausible for the era of counterfeiting.
3. Surface silvering or wash may be present on brass or copper cores, often worn through naturally with age.
4. Alloy matches period substitutions: wartime brass, nickel-silver, or low-grade steel confirmed via X-ray fluorescence (XRF), a “non-destructive analytical technique used to determine the exact elemental composition of a coin’s metal.
5. Die style mimics contemporary minting: hand-cut or worn dies with plausible irregularities and regional quirks.
6. Legends match genuine types with subtle errors: spacing, font, or punctuation off — verified against Stacks Bowers and Heritage Auctions.
7. Strike pressure and rim formation match era: weak or uneven, often with off-center or double strikes.
8. Known provenance or regional clustering: tied to specific towns, wartime zones, or trade routes; often supported by field card documentation.
9. Diagnostic die markers (e.g., die cracks, repunched dates, filled letters) shared across multiple specimens.
10. Natural toning and patina: sulfur-induced browns, thin-film interference, or oxidation consistent with age and storage.
For Modern Chinese Forgeries:
1. Bad Chinese Modern Forgery Non-CCC deceptive fantasy, often manufactured by Computer Numerical Control (CNC), computer-controlled lathes or milling machines to create the dies used to produce fake coins that are chemically aged.
2. Edge shows CNC reeding, lathe chatter, or repeating patterns, often too perfect or mechanically uniform. (Sometimes edges are blank or show no reeding at all, especially on fake silver types — a major red flag.)
3. Edge wear often absent or artificially applied, lacking the smooth abrasion of genuine circulation.
4. Weight matches regal specs too precisely, suggesting CNC replication or fantasy intent.
5. Use of iron-nickel alloys, Fe/Ni or “German Silver” common in fake “silver” types — confirmed via XRF as non-period and non-circulating.
6. Surface silvering often artificial, with flaking, bubbling, or chemical residue under magnification.
7. Die style overly sharp or digital, lacking the nuance of hand-cut or worn dies; often shows mirrored fields or laser-like precision.
8. Legends include anachronisms, fantasy elements, or mismatched fonts, often failing comparison with Stacks Bowers and Heritage Auctions.
9. Strike pressure and die alignment too perfect, lacking flaws of hand-struck CCCs; often shows full rim and centered strike.
10. Absence from CCC analyzed by community consensus, often flagged as deceptive or fantasy.
To be sure, these are red flags that veteran hobbyists use and learn from. But it is never too early for beginning and intermedia collectors to scroll through these red flags, look up terms that you do not fully understand, and continue learning how to identify counterfeits.
For beginning collectors
Here are simple techniques:
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.
Be especially careful when purchasing raw coins from eBay and other online venues. TAI bots cannot detect counterfeits, so you are on your own.
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.
Weigh the coin and go to PCGS CoinFacts for the date and mintmark, checking your coin against weights and dimensions.
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 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.
The saga continues of “new” counterfeits popping up on the market. In my downtime I enjoy browsing online sites and forums. In my search I stumbled across this 1857 half cent listed by what I would consider an average seller. Plenty of listings, with a number of them being genuine coins.
With only one die marriage being the C-1 for circulation issues, this should be a simple coin to attribute. Bay listing (Top) compared to a PCGS certified example (bottom). Clearly the date doesn’t attribute!
Following this, I set out to find more of the “family.” It didn’t take long to stumbled upon this 1854 example that shares a common reverse!
Both coins share this reverse with a large depression in the “N” and a line through the H of “Half.”
Fellow Proxiblog contributor Jack Young sent an eBay link of a spurious seller, and within the listings, it yielded another date sharing this reverse!
There seems to always be a “new one” weekly!
Because of that, I urge collectors to attribute a coin if they intend to buy it or at minimal ask a second opinion.
Attribution of a coin can be done by anyone, even without books! PCGS CoinFacts app as well as NGC’s variety plus are great tools that show images of many die marriages for most series. Compare your coin to the known varieties and determine if it matches. Many things play a factor such as date position relative to the denticles, star orientation, reverse lettering spacing.
Recognizing these differences will prepare you to attribute tougher varieties!
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.
Increasingly on social media, coin buyers display their recent purchases and ask, “How did I do?” If you ask this question, you probably should not be buying expensive coins. Then again, you can learn how you did by reading this article, which takes you step by step in the buying and bidding process.
For starters, if the coin is in a top-tier slab (PCGS, NGC, ANACS, CAC, ICG), you don’t need to ask that question. Just go to the cert of the holdering company, and you will see retail, wholesale and auction prices. See this article for details.
In the past, new collectors used to learn about coin value from brick-and-mortar shop owners who also belonged to the Professional Numismatist Guild. Now the number of coin shops have declined steadily due to high overhead (rent, security, insurance, inventory) and risk of robbery. Meanwhile coin magazine subscriptions plummeted. For instance, Coin World‘s readership declined from 33.4 million in 2015 to 21.5 million in 2019. Now the magazine measures its audience digitally, with some 65,000 collectors on its social media platforms and 40,000 on its marketplace page.
As a result, collectors prefer the convenience of buying online but often are misinformed by clickbait social media.
In the past, people had buyer’s remorse when they were hoodwinked. Now many collectors do not even realize they have been scammed.
Given these risks, how should they go about buying coins?
Let’s go through the above list with a coin being sold on eBay at this writing. Great Southern Coins is a reputable seller that also accepts returns:
This seller states that the coin is semi-prooflike and gem brilliant uncirculated. If you know how to grade, you might have a different opinion. It looks almost uncirculated or low mint state with flaws (scrapes, bag marks, rim dings and a pin scratch):
Now let’s go to Photograde and see what condition may match the raw coin above:
So we’re looking at an MS61 1879 Morgan. Now let’s consult PCGS CoinFacts for possible value:
Here we read about mintage and specifications:
Time to see retail and auction prices. An 1879 without flaws retails for $90 with 516 graded by PCGS at that level selling roughly at auction for about $70-100 with values seemingly rising over the years from about $50 in 2014.
But this 1879 from Great Southern Coins has flaws. What does one in a similar condition go for? CoinFacts again supplies the answer: $65.
Great Southern Coins ships inexpensively for $3.25 so I don’t have to worry about additional buyer’s fees and mailing. A good maximum bid for this coin would be $50.
If this coin were featured on HiBid or Live Auctioneers you would place a different maximum bid because sellers on those platforms often charge 15-25 percent buyer fees and $10-15 mailing. So if bidding here, your maximum would be $30 ($6 buyer fee at 20% and $14 mailing).
Here’s an example from a seller who already knows the value of the coin based on his starting $35 bid. But here you also pay $15 for shipping in addition to 15% buyer’s fee. So if you won the coin with a $35 bid, you would pay $5.25 plus $15 for a total: $55.25.
Now that you know the process, practice on eBay or HiBid/Live Auctioneers–not by bidding–but by following bidding and final sale and see if your estimate would have lost or won the coin. Do this repeatedly until you are confident in your purchasing skills.
If you like posts like this, you can read more articles on buying, selling and collecting at Proxiblog.org. 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.
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.
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!
The ever growing saga of new counterfeits continues. This 1872 S Seated Dollar below was recently brought to our attention in a Facebook group.
That’s an example of how counterfeit investigations begin.
A quick glance tells the story.
The 1872-S was only produced with one die marriage and that is referred to as an OC-1. Below is an image of the mintmark location of a genuine coin.
The coin clearly isn’t attributable to a genuine variety. The next step to me is looking for anything that may standout as a notable marker to find additional “bad” coins. Another example offered by Aliexpress shows us just where this came from.
Both coins show both a common obverse and reverse. Highlighted markers in red include a raised lump on the center of the obverse, misplaced mintmark, gouge in the shield, small indent on the R as well as an overall weakness of the U.
To be sure, a poorly executed cast; but as always there is a potential to see this on numerous dates.
Join the Fight
As we become experienced numismatists, we have an obligation to expose fakes and to share the methods to identify them.
As in the case of the counterfeit Seated Dollar, numismatists study die markers for one common sense reason. If counterfeiters are going to invest time, effort and funds to manufacture fake coins, they are going to use the same die for multiple mintages. That’s when inconsistences occur, ranging from suspicious mintmarks to unique features that deviate from authentic examples.
For instance, there can be deviations in lettering and design, weight and size, metal composition and edge details. I analyze all of these and more.
I will continue to share these details in my articles for Proxiblog and other publications as well as Facebook’s “Fun with Fakes” (FwF).
By understanding how die markers are used and by carefully examining coins for inconsistencies, coin collectors can increase their ability to identify counterfeit coins.
If you like posts like this, please go to our counterfeit archive with reports from Jack Riley, Jack D. Young and Michael Bugeja. 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.
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 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.
If you are a novice scouring Facebook coin groups, you’ll see dozens of fakes and replicas and might be tempted to like or even buy them, only later to learn you have been snookered.
In a few hours on the platform, I found the following counterfeits and tracked where so called ultra rarities were purchased.
1882-CC Morgan Dollar
The 1882-CC Morgan on the left is fake, due to the misplacement and wrong font size of the mintmark. The surface has that cheap base metal look along with casting bubbles. Morgan dollars are struck, not cast.
When focusing on Carson City dollars, always compare the raw coin with a PCGS example, which you can find on PCGS CoinFacts. The mint mark placement should be the same along with the size and sharpness of the CC.
You can also check die markers at VAMworld. If you are unfamiliar with VAMs, see our beginners guide to learn the basics.
Also look for any distortion of the devices and identify any tool marks or uneven surfaces.
1955 DDO Cent
If you are considering a doubled die coin, especially a rarity, carefully study and compare the raw coin with a holdered example. Inspect every letter, number or device. If you see any deviation, you have a fake.
The doubling on the counterfeit is south of the legend, “Liberty,” while the authentic doubling is north. There are also slight deviations on other letters of the motto and date.
1969-S DDO
If ever you see an ultra rarity on Facebook, eBay or other site, you are almost certainly looking at a fake. The problem here, though, are click-bait social media sites that claim you can still find the coins listed below in pocket change.
This coin appeared on a Facebook coin site:
The U.S. Mint estimated that a mere 50 or so of the doubled die 1969-S cent were released. Hobbyists have been searching for these for decades. Consider this: Between PCGS and NGC, 52 have been holdered.
Concerning the above fake, deviations exist on the legend and motto. Also, the date font is thick with no doubling, and the mintmark is misplaced.
Copies
There are three types of copies:
Coins with the word “COPY” altered or erased.
Coins with plating to match that of an ultra rarity.
Restruck coins with the correct metal and weight of an authentic one.
Kellogg Eagle
Any veteran hobbyist would know immediately that the coin below is a copy with the wrong metal and deviations in about every device, date and legend. Also, the word “Liberty” is missing and “copy” has been scraped away.
The motivation here concerns the rarity, an 1854 Kellogg Ten Dollar Gold piece, of which a mere 180-200 have been found. Kellogg & Co. was a private mint that produced gold coins in California during the Gold Rush. They sell for thousands and even tens of thousands of dollars, depending on the condition.
So the scammer learned about that and scraped, thinking someone on Facebook would buy it.
1943 P-D-S Copper Cents
The cents below are plated with the metal that matches the ultra rarity, with copper on the 1943 Philadelphia, Denver and San Francisco mintmarks. You can also get plated 1944 steel cents, all mints.
1944-D Restrike
These same ultra rarities (and many more on the above chart) are struck with the same metal and weight. When FB coin members are informed, often they become arrogant, probably because they have buyer’s remorse.
Here’s an example:
Join “FwF” FB Coin Group
If you are a Facebook coin group member, be sure to join “Fun with Fakes” moderated by counterfeit expert Jack D. Young who also writes for Proxiblog. You can find his articles on the archive tab of the website.
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 other venues. 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.
