1854 kellogg & Co 0

[Deerhunter1599]

Did the territorial coins weigh as much as the mint coins? I’m very thrown off by the weight Of this one. It seems to look Very real. Possibly k-1a R.4 Die?  Any info of this would be great. 

[kbbpll]

I don't know anything about these but by comparing images, it doesn't look right to me. Among many other things, it looks like plating has rubbed off high points on the reverse, there seem to be plating bubbles everywhere, and the shaft between the arrowheads is almost completely missing.

[James_OldeTowne]

It looks genuine from those photos, at least to me.  But the images aren't of high enough resolution to be sure.

If it were mine, it would DEFINITELY be on its way to NGC.

[Conder101]

With all the raised lumps and pimples on it (and what appear to be base metal showing through on at least three of the stars on the rev) I would say it is a fake.

As to weight I think they did try to match the weight of the government coins, but the fineness was usually off.  As a general rule the pioneer gold  had a melt value less than, sometimes significantly less, than the government coin.  

Edited July 7, 2020 by Conder101

[Just Bob]

Nah. I don't like the look of that one at all. I am calling "fake."

[Deerhunter1599]

From the extensive reading I’ve done, the territorial gold pieces produced by kellogg were the first of their kind and look of a double eagle. When the mint opened later than year in april, it couldn’t vill the void of coins because of lacking base metals and acids. but kellogg started producing his coins in the beginning of the year and kept production going even into the following year. If it’s a territorial pieces and the first of its kind how would it have known what standers it had to meet if the mint hadn’t even opened its doors yet? I’ve posted a pic below of a graded 62+ territorial pieces graded by PGCS For comparison, i think they looks damn close to me. If I hear enough good feedback I will prolly send it in. What do u guys think? If it’s a fake it’s like t best fake in the entire world. 

[kbbpll]

4 hours ago, Deerhunter1599 said:

If it’s a fake it’s like t best fake in the entire world

Not to rub your nose in it, but I don't think it's a particularly good fake. Your images are excellent, and you should use them to zoom in and compare with real coins. This is a multiple-thousand dollar coin if real. You can't escape the observation that the high points expose base metal, or the evident plating bubbles everywhere. Aside from that, look at the details. If you remain convinced, submit it for grading. Meanwhile, I would track down the seller...

[Deerhunter1599]

I see the details not near as good on mine coin as the ms62 I posted. To me it looks like erosion on the die? since these territorial pieces weren’t produced from the mint, I’m sure they used the die until they were practically trash, printing as many coins as possible, without trading up the die like the mint would, prolly useing them till the die broke.  This is just speculation. I appreciate your input and would love to hear some more feedback from others. As for a base metal underneath, I’m not sure I’m convinced there is, there’s some rather deeper scratches on the front of the coin near lady liberty's face, that show no sign of plating underneath, they seem deep enough that it would have show through. The back does have some spotting issue and I agree but I’m also taking into the account that these coins didn’t come from the mint, and even appears to be a bubbling issue on the ms62 I posted. There’s a large bubble spot right below the O on San Francisco. I believe the shininess on the stars are were the coin rattled back and fourth on As it free floated In it’s hard case. The gold seems to be of low quality to me, possibly 14-18k. Again this is speculation to me and I wanted to get other people’s input before spending  money on grading it. The 3 stars do look different colored but it looks like a shinny gold to me. 

[l.cutler]

I'd have to say your coin has all the earmarks of a fake.  Mushy details, grainy surfaces and base metal showing through.  Certainly your choice whether to send it in or not but I see no chance that it is good.

[Deerhunter1599]

I took and cleaned up the coin abit and took pictures cause I feel the first pics I shared weren’t the best. 

[VKurtB]

Now it REALLY looks fake. Yikes!

[Greenstang]

Better pictures just confirm it is a counterfeit. Too many variations to be genuine.

[l.cutler]

Fake beyond doubt, but if it had been real, cleaning it like that would have been catastrophic!  It being a fake it really doesn't matter but if genuine it would have wiped out a lot of the value!

Edited July 8, 2020 by l.cutler

[Deerhunter1599]

I just whipped the coin with a sunglass cleaning cloth. Nothing crazy. This was my reason for purchasing the coin as it looked like it had been authenticated at one time. I was told it was a special strike by kellogg after the mint had opened. Only 5,000 were made. From what you all are saying I should prolly go get my money back? 

[Conder101]

6 hours ago, Deerhunter1599 said:

I just whipped the coin with a sunglass cleaning cloth. Nothing crazy. 

That's all it takes to greatly reduce the value of a rare coin.

 

6 hours ago, Deerhunter1599 said:

From what you all are saying I should prolly go get my money back? 

I would.  Did you buy it from Ray Burns, or someone else?

Edited July 9, 2020 by Conder101

[James_OldeTowne]

The new images make it look far more fake than the first set.

Ray Burns, out of Michigan?

[Modwriter]

2 hours ago, James_OldeTowne said:

The new images make it look far more fake than the first set.

Ray Burns, out of Michigan?

Fake label perhaps? Ray Burns should spot real from fake coins.

[Deerhunter1599]

Says ray burns LTD professional numismatic,  Cleveland Ohio, 216-402-2646. I googled the place and it seems to be a real thing. I was told from the lady I purchased from today that it was a special strike after the mint had opened that year. There were only 5,000 minted. She could be feeding me garbage. It’s very possible. But I’m trying to keep and open mind. Like I mentioned before, these coins didn’t come from the mint and they had ZERO standers they had to meet because of that. They were made in someone’s basement from the reading I’ve done. If it’s real is a territorial gold coin. (Not to be compared with a double eagle from the mint). The quality of the gold seems 14 k at best. The gold seems real, and the scratches in the front seem deep enough that a base metal would be showing thru. The strike of the die looks as it it had suffered terrible erosion loss. Witch makes since if they were made after the mint in San Francisco had opened. They had already produced some 30,000 coins by then. Tho these coins were produced from kellogg and were traders around as real coins. Think about it for a fake coin made 170 years ago, it looks pretty good. 

[Deerhunter1599]

I shouldn’t say a fake coin, but for a coin produced 160* years ago, that was suppose to match that of a double eagle it did a pretty good job. They didn’t run a mint themselves they ran a small operation in a basement. 

[Conder101]

8 hours ago, Deerhunter1599 said:

Says ray burns LTD professional numismatic,  Cleveland Ohio, 216-402-2646.

The label says that, but is that where you got it?  Otherwise anyone could have just put that into that holder.

8 hours ago, Deerhunter1599 said:

Like I mentioned before, these coins didn’t come from the mint and they had ZERO standers they had to meet because of that.

No they still had to match mint standards very closely or the coins would be rejected in commerce or only accepted at a large discount.  Most California Teritorial were made from unrefined gold (They had the same problem as the early mint, low availability of parting acids.) so fineness tended to be below mint standards around 860 to 875 fine.  14 K would only be 583 fine.  Weight would be close to mint weight as well.  Although there was no local mint making double eagles, double eagle and eagles had been in production at the other mints for some time and the proper weight would have been known, so they what the standards were.  The quality of the die preparation for this piece is also well below that of other coins that would be available.  A crude surface coin such as this would have been looked upon with suspicion and it is is really 14K would have passed (if it did) at around $10 not twenty.  The real Kellogg coins weren't like this. At the Mint in Philadelphia they were accepted at better than $19.80 based on assay.

[VKurtB]

5 hours ago, Lancek said:

Looks like a Capital holder.  Very easy to unscrew and change out a coin.  I'm no expert on fakes.  But I've been on this board a couple years now.  A lot of the people who have chimed in are experts.  If they say run away, I'd start sprinting.

Oy vey, you should SEE all the Capitol Plastics holders I have for coins I can’t afford!

[RWB]

The OP's illustrated piece is a cheap fake.

California private mint coins were supposed to contain sufficient gold (usually native) to equal the fact value. Exact weight varied and so did the gold content.