This video documents the various ways to identify fake Chinese holders and coins, including lack of logos on slab, pasted Gold Shield sticker, wrong fonts, wrong 1921 label, wrong reverse and so much more. Below the video is a an example of a Carson City Morgan dollar with six significant problems signifying a counterfeit.
This coin was posted on a Facebook coin group feed.
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 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.
When people ask if their coin is cleaned, they may not know the various types of cleaning, which this article explains with illustrations.
Hobbyists sometimes clean coins using acetone or detergents, typically non-destructive. These destructive cleaning methods permanently alter the coin’s surface and dramatically reduce its collectible value.
Dipping: Using a chemical solution (often a dilute acid) to strip away toning or oxidation from the coin’s surface, leaving micro bubbles that are red flags.
Smoothing: Using a cloth, abrasive paste or other substance to rub the surface, leaving tiny scratches called “hairlines.”
Polishing: Using a device or tool to buff the surface of the coin so that it shines with a false luster, often blurring devices.
Whizzing: Using a high-speed rotating brush to create artificial luster, leaving unnatural proof-like sheen with telltale patterns of metal flow around the coin’s devices.
Scrubbing: A coin that contains evidence of an abrasive material like baking soda or a metal brush, often to remove verdigris or other contaminant.
Chemical Application: Soaking a coin in acidic household items like vinegar with salt or lemon juice that remove verdigris and ruin eye appeal.
Electrolysis: Using electrical current in a solution to strip away corrosion, a process often used on ancient coins or ones found by metal detecting.
All sample coins above would get a details/cleaned grade by a holdering company.
For those who want to clean coins via non-destructive methods, consider rinsing them in distilled water or soaking in acetone, mild soap or olive oil. To learn more about if and when to clean coins, see “When, If and How to Clean Coins.”
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.
Internet venues often give rather interesting finds. In this case, modern counterfeit Lafayette Dollars.
The Lafayette Dollar was the first U.S. commemorative silver dollar, and the first coin to feature an American citizen (Lafayette; made honorary citizen by Congress) and a U.S. President (Washington) together. Add to that its scarcity in mint condition due to low sales and melting.
So this coin is a target of counterfeiters.
The image below is from a semi-large eBay seller who has a number of legitimate coins listed; however, in the mix of these there lies a counterfeit Lafayette Dollar. If anyone wants to authenticate a Lafayette Dollar there are 5 known DuVall varieties and that can be sourced from VAMWorld; these examples do not attribute.
A comparable example below is sourced from a larger Facebook coin group. Presented as s questionable, the coin at a glance looks suspicious.
Comparing the two “coins” we can see a few repeating marks highlighted in green:
Depression in A
Small circular dot behind the eye
Depression on the top of the tail
Two sporadic field dots above the date
This third example below clearly stated “copy” and was derived from another online source known for selling counterfeit U.S. coins. Additional markers in red denote common similarities; yet these did not appear present on the eBay example. They are present on the piece shared in the large group.
Highlighted repeating marks in red:
Lines protruding from ETT
Spike from T
Apparently scratch from behind the shoulder
“Boot Spur”
If you spot a counterfeit coin on eBay, report it immediately using the “Report Item” link on the listing to eBay’s Trust & Safety team.
If you like posthttps://www.amazon.com/dp/B0D131V2QRs 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 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.
Fortunately, the 1889-CC Morgan dollar has only three known major die varieties (VAMs), each with specific die markers. This makes it easier than other dates with more markers when identifying counterfeits.
The most common practice is to add a CC to the common 1889 Philadelphia Morgan. That is why knowing the die markers for authentic coins is so important.
A mere 350,000 coins in 1889 were struck at the Carson City Mint, and hundreds of thousands of those were melted after 1918 due to the Pittman Act. This makes it a nifty target for criminals. Moreover, the common date 1889 Philadelphia is used for an added mintmark. Here is an example from NGC:
Right off the bat, veteran hobbyists know that the mintmark used in the above example is the wrong one for an 1889-CC dollar.
In this article we will explore die markers for the three aforementioned VAM varieties. The main difference is the position and appearance of the date and mintmark, which uses the larger elliptical “CC” mintmark in production between 1879 and 1893.
Let’s start there by showing the mintmark of an 1878-CC and 1889-CC Morgan:
Note the smaller, thicker non-elliptical mintmark of the 1878-CC. Difference is easily recognizable.
VAM-1 Normal Die
The date “1889” has a normal lateral position, and the mintmark on the reverse is also in a standard position relative to the other devices there. Example:
VAM-2: High 9, Doubled 1
The numeral “9” is set higher than the other numerals in the date, sometimes even with a doubled “1.”
The “CC” mintmark is typically placed further to the right than in other varieties.
VAM-3: Far Date
The entire date is farther to the right than normal and also may also slightly slanted.
The second “C” of the reverse mintmark is higher than the first “C,” as this Vamworld photo shows.
A couple of things before ending here. If you don’t know VAMs and die markers, do NOT purchase a raw 1889-CC Morgan. There are thousands of counterfeits circulating in online auctions. Knowing VAM die markers can be challenging; but once you master them, you’ll be able to inform others when they ask whether their coin is genuine or fake.
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.
View the forgotten women whose beauty metamorphosed to Lady Liberty on our coins. I bring them to life so that we remember Anna Willess Williams, teacher and philosopher, and Teresa de Francisci, model. Anna was a classic beauty (inside and out) and Teresa, a Mediterranean immigrant who became the American symbol of freedom and worldwide peace. Proxiblog will be posting again on Jan. 2, 2026.
Proxiblog had 170, 200 views; 113,600 unique viewers; and thousands of followers on Facebook, YouTube and social media. The site now is considered one of the top coin blogs with stellar reviews about our illustrated coin term and error directories, counterfeit articles and hobby posts. View this video about the top articles and contributors.
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.
Jefferson Nickel role hunters should be on the lookout for valuable 1968-S through 1970-S full-step rarities, often overlooked and sometimes even confused with proof strikes. True, these are ultra rarities; but looking for them sharpens the eye and several dozen or more may still be at large in bank rolls.
In 1968, the “S” mintmark for Jefferson nickels was reintroduced for circulating coinage after a hiatus from 1965 to 1967. During that time, the Mint prohibited mintmarks due to coin hoarding, pursuant to Coinage Act of 1965, meant to alleviate a coin shortage and to discourage hoarding of silver coins.
Mintmarks were restored to circulating coins in 1968. In 1971, the San Francisco Mint struck only proof nickels.
The purpose of this article is to call attention to values associated with business strikes for those critical years. Also, newer hobbyists in general should be able to distinguish the difference between mint state business strikes and proof strikes.
Let’s begin with proof strikes for these years. These largely have no value unless PR69 deep cameo.
The San Francisco mint was extraordinarily busy making business strikes: 1968-S mintage: 103,437,510; 1969-S mintage: 123,009,631; and 1970-S mintage: 214,464,814.
Because of huge quotas, dies weren’t swapped out as they normally would, meaning deterioration limited the number of full-step coins. Only those at the beginning of the manufacturing process produced those rarities.
In fact, you will not find a 1969-S nickel with full steps. f you find one, you bagged the unicorn. None are thought to exist, although this ANACS example was offered in 2009 by Heritage Auctions. A reserve of $1200 was put on the coin, but it did not sell.
There is a reason it did not sell. I question whether this even has full steps. It definitely would not crossover to PCGS or NGC:
That said, PCGS has holdered 25 full-step 1968-S and 106 full-step 1970-S. NGC has holdered 13 1968-S FS and 36 1970-S FS.
See this PCGS chart for values:
True, you might not be able to find a full-step 1968-S through 1970-S. Nevertheless, knowing the rarities of these dates and the enormous mintages of each, it still is worth checking, even if only to distinguish the business strike from the proof strike.
Concerning other denominations:
The San Francisco Mint struck business strike and proof cents from 1968-74, with the facility shifting to producing proof coinage for collectors after 1975. The San Francisco Mint also produced business strike Roosevelt dimes from 1946-55 but did not produce circulating dimes between 1968 and 1974. The facility produced quarters and half dollars from 1968 through 1974. After 1975, the California Mint produced proof coinage, with business strikes in some years for collectors.
Finally, the San Francisco Mint made Eisenhower dollars from 1971 to 1978, but did not produce copper-nickel business strikes during all of those years. It also minted business strike dollars later with the Susan B. Anthony series.
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.
Recently a Facebook coin group member posted a notice stating that he had found the coveted 1982-D Small Date bronze cent–verified by PCGS! Only two have been discovered, in 1916 and 1919, although social media has used the rarity to lure newbies into thinking that have the variety or that it can easily be found.
Here is what he wrote:
“This right here is for everyone that doubted me … chew that up and swallow it. no I’m not gonna be a jerk. I’m super excited. I have proved the 1982D small date with the weak D mint mark and a QDO. And a TDR it has now been verified and authenticated by PCGS as a new variety.”
He provided this proof:
Some 180 Facebook coin group members commented on his post. Here’s a snippet with Tyler Broughton noting the inconsistencies of his supposed PCGS email:
True, the person may be just hoping his submission brings the desired result. We all have been there. But what to make of the letter? It is seemingly informed and may have convinced viewers that indeed, the person did find the rarity. Many commentators congratulated him on his lottery-level find.
Without divulging his name, or the Facebook post and email, I contacted PCGS. A representative confirmed that the company would never send an email like this in advance of encapsulation. There is no Express/Gold service level. There is no Variety/Plus team (that’s NGC). Neither would it divulge internal means of certification.
Let’s take a breath.
It may be that this person indeed found a rarity. For his sake, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he so believes in his diagnostics that he is sharing the good news before he gets any news. That, however, is not the point of this article. This is: How do we as hobbyists deal with a verification email that might sway us to believe that a coin, indeed, is an ultra rarity? Suppose we saw an email like this on a coin that we might want to purchase? Is this a new way to fool hobbyists?
Let’s see if AI can pretend to be from PCGS and report a rare find.
I used ChatGPT. I fed AI a few basic facts, the rarity, the date of submission, the service level and a few other details. It took me 2 minutes. Here’s what I received:
This is a chilling discovery–not of a rarity–but of how a rarity can be disguised with a fake email or letter, courtesy of AI. I won’t do this, but I could have found PCGS letterhead and pasted the above there. I could invent an email from PCGS–even with an employee name. I could no any number of things, and machine intelligence would help me.
We as hobbyists have to be on top of every new method to beguile us. This may only be the start with AI providing fictional text, video and images of our fondest numismatic desires.
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 other 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.
Five valuable VAMs exist for the 1880-P Morgan dollar whose working dies differed from each other significantly, resulting in their being listed among popular “Top 100” VAM list.
The “spikes” are readily seen above the “8” with another die marker on the “0.” This retails for about $65 in XF40; $180, AU55; and $1,140, MS63.
1880 VAM 7 8/7 Crossbar
1880-P VAM-7 Crossbar overdate is one of the most difficult to identify and rarely found in high grades. VAMWORLD advises to look for the horizontal line crossing the top of the second 8 of the date. Values are XF40, $185; AU55, $485; and MS63, $5,500.
1880 VAM 8 8/7 Ears
The second 8 in the date has two short ears on top. Values are XF40, $1,250; AU55, $5,500; and MS62, $15,500.
1880 VAM 9 8/7 Stem
VAMWORLD states the second 8 has raised metal on right side of upper loop and bottom loop has faint outline 7 stem with raised metal at top right. Values are XF40, $65; AU55, $100; and MS63, $240.
1880 VAM 11 Checkmark
Note the doubled “880” with remains of 7 showing on the upper left surface of the second 8, creating that checkmark. Values are AU55, $90; MS63, $185.
While many 1880-P coins exist in circulated condition, the above VAM varieties are rare in pristine mint state, prooflike and deep mirror.
Also, if seeking to purchase one of these varieties, your best option is to find one slabbed by PCGS. NGC, ANACS or CAC.
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 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.
