1804 Silver Dollar

[CoinedIt]

Hi,

In possession of an 1804 Silver Dollar. Relatively naive when it comes to counterfeits and the ability to tell the difference, however, upon some research and a few checks, I can't tell whether or not this is simply a relatively good knock off.

Attached are pic(s). Haven't had time to weigh it, yet, but the coin is NOT magnetic whatsoever, which was one of the quick tests suggested on another forum.

Your thoughts/expertise would be appreciated. I highly suspect I just have a counterfeit, but, it's always worth checking  

Many thanks

[rrantique]

[CoinedIt]

I am assuming that is your 21st century way of informing me that it is indeed counterfeit

[rrantique]

That's what it looks like to me.  Sorry.

[MarkFeld]

Welcome to the forum. 

The coin is a counterfeit which bears little resemblance to genuine examples.

[BillJones]

This counterfeit has been well distributed. I've seen many of them and even have one sitting by my desk. A collector friend gave to me to display with my "How to spot counterfeits" presentations.

[CoinedIt]

Thanks, all, for your prompt and helpful replies. Given I am completely new to the forum and coins, I thought it was better just to check! 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

Sorry, that is actually a very poor cast counterfeit. 

[kidrootbeer]

well, not exactly a Cast (cast from what? another fake?)... see if it's magnetic

[physics-fan3.14]

1 hour ago, allmine said:

well, not exactly a Cast (cast from what? another fake?)... see if it's magnetic

He says in the OP that it is not magnetic. 

And it is cast from crudely cut molds. This is not a die struck counterfeit. 

[kidrootbeer]

18 minutes ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

He says in the OP that it is not magnetic. 

And it is cast from crudely cut molds. This is not a die struck counterfeit. 

yuh,  missed the Magnetic part

Cast in what? Sand? How do you punch sand to cast?

[physics-fan3.14]

1 minute ago, allmine said:

yuh,  missed the Magnetic part

Cast in what? Sand? How do you punch sand to cast?

Quite possible sand, yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_casting

[kidrootbeer]

this is the cast example:
https://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=265599

[kidrootbeer]

the thing is, I don't think you can punch a sand cast...

instead of going to all that trouble, it's easier to punch die steel

[physics-fan3.14]

1 minute ago, allmine said:

this is the cast example:
https://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=265599

Correction: that is *a* cast example. There are millions of copies of the 1804 dollar, made in many different ways. Some are better than others. The OP's is clearly a better quality than the one you just linked, but both are cast, and both are fake. 

[physics-fan3.14]

1 minute ago, allmine said:

the thing is, I don't think you can punch a sand cast...

Doesn't really matter what you think. You can make fake coins with sand casts. 

I'm not really claiming that the OP's coin is a sand mold. But it is not die struck. It has the qualities of a cast fake. 

[physics-fan3.14]

2 minutes ago, allmine said:

it's easier to punch die steel

Not even remotely close! Punching die steel and making counterfeits with dies is extremely advanced technology. 

I highly recommend you read "Numismatic Forgery" for an account of many, many different types of counterfeits. Casting copies is the most ancient technique, and has been used for nearly as long as coins have existed. 

[rrantique]

Fake dies.

 

[kidrootbeer]

9 hours ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

Doesn't really matter what you think. You can make fake coins with sand casts. 

I'm not really claiming that the OP's coin is a sand mold. But it is not die struck. It has the qualities of a cast fake. 

YOU said it was a Cast. All I ask is: Cast from what and in what. You can't even answer that

[WoodenJefferson]

On a real 1804 dollar, the 13th star nearly touches the breast, on this coin it is to far off.

I'm with Physics-Fan that this is a mediocre casting, as there are parts of missing letters, blobby stars and missing detail in the eagles feathers. Typical features seen in cast fakes. Under magnification, I'd be willing to bet you see tiny specks between the dentils and other devices, casting flaws if you will.

[kidrootbeer]

5 hours ago, WoodenJefferson said:

On a real 1804 dollar, the 13th star nearly touches the breast, on this coin it is to far off.

I'm with Physics-Fan that this is a mediocre casting, as there are parts of missing letters, blobby stars and missing detail in the eagles feathers. Typical features seen in cast fakes. Under magnification, I'd be willing to bet you see tiny specks between the dentils and other devices, casting flaws if you will.

Physics-Fan intimated that it is a Cast. I asked: "cast from what?"... fwiw: it's impossible to punch a sand-cast "die" so there has to be a Host Coin. Also, the surfaces like they look here do not support a Cast coin diagnosis, and the "scrubbing" is seen an a LOT of Chinese die-struck counterfeits. Still looking for where the "coin" was broken from the cast medium

as far as it being "too weak to have been struck", the boys at Machin's Mills and some Canadian Blacksmiths want to talk to you

 

[WoodenJefferson]

5 minutes ago, allmine said:

Physics-Fan intimated that it is a Cast. I asked: "cast from what?"... fwiw: it's impossible to punch a sand-cast "die" so there has to be a Host Coin. Also, the surfaces like they look here do not support a Cast coin diagnosis, and the "scrubbing" is seen an a LOT of Chinese die-struck counterfeits. Still looking for where the "coin" was broken from the cast medium

simple answer: it's a counterfeit of a counterfeit. The sprue is along the edge which can be filed down and disappear when the 'antiquing' solution is applied. We have answers for everything, even for the most combative of posters.

[MarkFeld]

7 hours ago, WoodenJefferson said:

On a real 1804 dollar, the 13th star nearly touches the breast, on this coin it is to far off.

I'm with Physics-Fan that this is a mediocre casting, as there are parts of missing letters, blobby stars and missing detail in the eagles feathers. Typical features seen in cast fakes. Under magnification, I'd be willing to bet you see tiny specks between the dentils and other devices, casting flaws if you will.

Making note of differences in star placement gives the counterfeit far more credit than it deserves. Just look at the design and detail differences in the obverse portrait and the eagle, among other areas - they aren't anywhere close to that seen on genuine examples.

[physics-fan3.14]

16 hours ago, allmine said:

YOU said it was a Cast. All I ask is: Cast from what and in what. You can't even answer that

It was cast from a crudely carved master. It doesn't matter what it was cast in, just that it was cast. I don't know the method by which it was cast; and it really isn't important to this discussion.

[kidrootbeer]

11 minutes ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

It was cast from a crudely carved master. It doesn't matter what it was cast in, just that it was cast. I don't know the method by which it was cast; and it really isn't important to this discussion.

Oh, it Certainly IS, because then you could not be accused of having No Idea what you are talking about... 
"Crudely carved master"? OK, that's a *New One*
so, you're saying that the Host Coin (dies, because you never ever said this)  are entirely "hand-carved"?

[kidrootbeer]

39 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

Making note of differences in star placement gives the counterfeit far more credit than it deserves. Just look at the design and detail differences in the obverse portrait and the eagle, among other areas - they aren't anywhere close to that seen on genuine examples.

The Authenticity isn't being question, just the manufacture

[kidrootbeer]

2 hours ago, WoodenJefferson said:

simple answer: it's a counterfeit of a counterfeit. The sprue is along the edge which can be filed down and disappear when the 'antiquing' solution is applied. We have answers for everything, even for the most combative of posters.

as long as the answer is correct for the application; if not, then everything can and should be questioned. And if no one has an idea of the cast medium, then, well, what does that say

[physics-fan3.14]

13 minutes ago, allmine said:

so, you're saying that the Host Coin (dies, because you never ever said this)  are entirely "hand-carved"?

Well, it certainly isn't a transfer from an authentic coin!

Whatever it was cast from was either hand carved (the link you posted is almost certainly hand carved), or possibly used punches. Hard to tell, and it really isn't important for this forgery - it is crude, it is not convincing to anyone who knows anything about genuine examples, and any further arguing about the absolute precise details of its illicit manufacture are pointless. 

Unless something new and exciting appears in this thread, I am done with this discussion. 

[MarkFeld]

5 minutes ago, allmine said:

The Authenticity isn't being question, just the manufacture

I understand , quite well, that the authenticity isn't being questioned. However, the remark to which I replied, was "On a real 1804 dollar, the 13th star nearly touches the breast, on this coin it is to far off." To me, it didn't sound as if it pertained to the method of manufacture.

[kidrootbeer]

No, it's not germane to that conversation. The Question is, that some think it's a Cast as opposed to Die Struck, and others want to know why that is the thought.