Is this IHC a forgery?
1 1

11 posts in this topic

360 posts

Hey guys, I admit to asking over in the Ask NCS/NGC Forum 1st but I think I did something wrong so decided to ask here. I asked there because I have never seen any IHC questions here and I know that David co-wrote a book about them, so there ya go. My friend has this IHC and we are trying to find out if it is counterfeit or not. We weren't even thinking that until another dude said he thinks it is but he is as newbie as I am, sooo... I have studied up and there are some differences between it and some I have looked at online, like the 6 and the 8 and the curl on the cheek and lines of the shield but idt these things would be effected on a fake coin but rather, like I read that usually the coin will appear to have been stamped from a worn die and the edge would be rounded, things like that. Anyway, here are the pictures and it is in weight for an 1860 IHC. Idr what the weight is but is much more than the 1864 3.1gms. I do think it has been cleaned, by what I have no,idea because there is no grunge at all on it. So your input is requested and appreciated. 

Screenshot_2019-03-18-21-01-48-1.png

Screenshot_2019-03-18-21-01-58-1.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,967 posts

Hi Karen,

Let me preface this by saying that it's been a while since I've had to authenticate an Indian Cent, but I don't see anything that would indicate a fake to me.  It looks right, and a Copper-Nickel Indian Cent is heavier than Bronze one.  A Copper-Nickel Indian Cent should weigh 4.67 grams.  However, I'd say you are correct in thinking that the coin has been cleaned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,195 posts

I have some reservations about the surface. It seems to have a bubbliness, or one might say a fabric pattern of little indentations. That doesn't mean it's fake, just means one would want to understand what could have caused that. I also kind of wonder about the edge ding, parallel to the edge, at 900 on the obverse. Seems an odd minting defect for an authentic, uncirculated IHP. Look at LIBERTY on her headband--some of those letters don't look nearly as well done as the real deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,032 posts

There's an odd lack of detail / definition in  the area I've marked here.

Screenshot_2019-03-18-21-01-58-1.png.c772c11ee4cc3d73a0b65e72a34f2059.png.265ed5f40627a379036b9f2f05cca3f0.png

The 8 and the 6 do look funky...

I'm not an expert in the series by any means, but I'd be suspicious. I think it's either fake or someone cleaned the hell out of it. The spot near the E and R in America really makes me wonder about cleaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,967 posts
14 minutes ago, Revenant said:

There's an odd lack of detail / definition in  the area I've marked here.

Screenshot_2019-03-18-21-01-58-1.png.c772c11ee4cc3d73a0b65e72a34f2059.png.265ed5f40627a379036b9f2f05cca3f0.png

The 8 and the 6 do look funky...

I'm not an expert in the series by any means, but I'd be suspicious. I think it's either fake or someone cleaned the hell out of it. The spot near the E and R in America really makes me wonder about cleaning.

You make some very good points.  Copper-Nickel Indian Cents often display areas of weakness as the alloy is very hard and the US Mint at the time did have trouble working with it.    But, having a second look and looking at the 1860 Indian Cent on Coin Explorer........those numerals do look weird.  It's possible that it is damage caused by the cleaning, which was obviously a harsh clean, but now I'm not so sure.  I'm not ready to completely throw out the possibility of the coin being genuine, but I have some concerns now.  I also don't think that this coin is an Uncirculated example.  I think it's a higher AU grade, but very harshly cleaned. That could account for some of the weirdness we're seeing here.  But, honestly, I'm out of my element here.   Hopefully someone who knows a lot more about Indian Cents than I do will chime in here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
360 posts

Alrighty then. Thank you all for your input. I am maybe more confused now. Lol! Jk. Really, cause I looked at these photos all day and was going cross-eyed, I'm sure. I noticed most of what you've pointed out and will now look at the areas that I didn't notice before. 

I was kind of hoping to hear more about what I would call a 'thickness' of the design elements. To me it's like everything is blunted. But y'all don't see it so I'm sure it is my tired eyes. 

Thanks again. I do appreciate you all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
360 posts

Well alrighty. You do have some of the most odd explanations. I still have the screenshot of a reeded Cent you explained for me. It is tucked away neatly in my 'explanations' album. This too will be.  So then it is real but he probably shouldn't send it in then. Ima try to stop him.

Thank you all very much. You know I love ya and I mean it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
360 posts

Ahhh...my Friend is so disappointed. I hate that I had to be the one to tell him. But I guess it's better to know than not to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,387 posts
On 3/19/2019 at 10:09 AM, DWLange said:

Your coin has been "whizzed," that is, worked over with a rotary brush tool to simulate luster. This was done to a lot of XF and AU coins in the 1970s to sell them as MS.

Along with the whizzing in the fields, the numbers have been whizzed around giving them their skinny look. Here is my ENV damaged version :-) 

The numbers are their original size

 

 

1860.jpg

Edited by jgrinz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1