Fake of a Fake! — Welcome to the CAC Educational Forum

Fake of a Fake!

As some of you know, many of us collect counterfeit coins. Contemporary counterfeits of foreign coins and U.S. Colonials are often valued more than their genuine counterpart.

One "famous" counterfeit U.S. gold coin is the 1907 "Omega" High Relief $20. These coins usually sell for over their bullion price due to their novelty and story.

We'll just now, I'm grading a modern struck counterfeit of that fifty year old fake. Unfortunately, for the submitter who sent it in to be slabbed with our yellow Education Only label for counterfeits as an "Omega" fake, it is going to be put in a slab as simply not genuine. Consider this as a warning that there must be many of these entering the market. I'm going to have images made and will post them next week.
«1

Comments


  • UPDATE: There is not enough of the "Omega" Type diagnostics still visible enough to consider this a copy of fake!

    I'm very disappointed this will go out as a normal C/F HR $20.
  • Hi - Can you post photos of it?
  • I will when I get them done but it will not fool you or any other knowledgeable numismatists with a hand lens.
  • Let me guess, made in China.
  • CACfan said:

    Let me guess, made in China.

    That would be my guess also. At first it looked like a softer strike (transfer) "Omega" with the main diagnostics present but very week. It would have made a great "Fake of a Fake" column and in my excitement, I posted the OP. Sadly, as soon as I examined it for photo's, I realized that what first looked like the diagnostic wormy tool marks in the hair (but very weak) were different. A real let down. :(

    "Mr. Chang" has produced some very deceptive fakes. This is not one of them. The dealer who bought it knew it was a C/F but got stuck for the premium the "Omega's" bring.
  • edited November 2022
    Since we"re talking about fakes .  It would be nice to see a column about  the 1942  Lincoln cents prewar  composition that was 95% Copper 4% Zinc and 1% tin  (Bronze )  that  changed  to 95% Copper and 5% zinc.

    Questions raised after rare  1943/42-S (Brass Alloy)  Lincoln Cent OverDate Variety was reportedly discovered . 

    First and foremost brass and bronze are both metal alloys, which means they are a combination of two or more different metals.  The Brass alloy is composed of copper and zinc  whereas bronze alloy  is made up of copper, zinc and tin. 
     

    After the production of the new zinc coated steel cents began on Abraham Lincoln's birthday - February 12, 1943 in the Philadelphia mint followed by the Denver and San Francisco mint in March  a few planchets used in 1942  got stuck in the hopper  causeing an extremely rare variety known as the "1943 copper cent. 

    Under emergency legislation  enacted in January  1942  "tin" was eliminated from the 1- Cent piece and an alloy of 95% Copper and 5% zinc was used , until  emergency legislation expired, as  specified by law, in 1947, the use of tin would  resumed. 

     Approximately,, one tenth of the normal  1% tin, in respect of law, was added back to the 1-Cent piece in 1947 because  during WWII tin was not available for coinage use. 

     According to the American Numismatic Association  " The Attack of Pearl Harbor in 1941 called America to war, which would drag on for 6 long years. As usual, when the war broke out demand for coinage spiked. At the time the Lincoln cent was composed of 95% copper, 4% zinc, and 1% tin."  [until] " the bronze composition was switched to brass in 1942  "95% copper and 5% zinc'  because copper and tin were in high demand needed for various armaments and weaponry"   This seemingly small change saved 100,000 pounds of tin for war efforts. The 40,000 pounds that the US mint had at hand was handed over to the War Production Board." 

    Because tin wasnt available for use during WWII in  December  1943 after the zinc coated steel cent was used in 1943 for only one year,  the mint  returned to the (brass) composition used in 1942.'  accoeding to mint records,  in December of 1943 it was announced that the zinc coated steel cent was  abandoned and the mint would  returned to the brass composition, used in 1942.  ---Where  it remained  from 1944 to 1946.. And  after tin was added back to the 1-cent piece  in 1947  the first 1943 copper cent was reportedly discovered by Don Lutes.     Unless someone comes up with an better explanation its my conclusion that most, if not all, previous 1942 and 1943 1-cent discoveries reported by major grading organizations  containing tin were  counterfeited in 1947.     And as you can clearly see my discovery was god sent and I know for a fact he's not a happy  camper for the way I've been treated so let this be the example--in jesus's name 
  • Insider3 said:

    CACfan said:

    Let me guess, made in China.

    That would be my guess also. At first it looked like a softer strike (transfer) "Omega" with the main diagnostics present but very week. It would have made a great "Fake of a Fake" column and in my excitement, I posted the OP. Sadly, as soon as I examined it for photo's, I realized that what first looked like the diagnostic wormy tool marks in the hair (but very weak) were different. A real let down. :(

    "Mr. Chang" has produced some very deceptive fakes. This is not one of them. The dealer who bought it knew it was a C/F but got stuck for the premium the "Omega's" bring.
    Speaking of fakes, how can you determine if Bust, Seated, and Barber branch mint proofs/specimens are fake or real? Mainly, true PR's/SP's or merely processed business strikes? I have heard that your service has not certified any. I know that NGC and ANACS have each slabbed several and even stingy PCGS has deemed a few thus. Does your firm require documentation, have demanding requirements, or just always say no due to the attribution controversy? Even if documents were presented, how could anyone prove that they accompany a given coin?


  • rdsimpson said:

    Since we"re talking about fakes .  It would be nice to see a column about  the 1942  Lincoln cents prewar  composition that was 95% Copper 4% Zinc and 1% tin  (Bronze )  that  changed  to 95% Copper and 5% zinc after Pearl Harbor was attacked in December.(1941)  accirdiing to my research in January 1942 the 1-Cents composition  changed  to 95% Copper and 5% zinc   (no tin) until  December 18, 1942 when  legislation decided to use   zinc coated steel for  one year only in .1943 (when the 1943  transition error  occured.) the Lincoln cents  composition was   95% Copper and 5% zinc (no tin)  in 1942, 1944, 1945 and 1946 that didn't change until 1947 after  emergency legislation expired  requiring  at least avsmall trace of Tin be added back to the 1-cent  Composition when  one tenth of  the previous 1% Tin   was added 


    Conclusion -- Based on my Investigation " The rare 1943 copper cents, composition (accidently  minted on a  1942 Planchet)    couldn't possibly  include Tin,  because the brass alloy containing 95%copper and 5% zinc did not change until 1947 when the first discovery was actually  made by Don Lutes,  unless they were  counterfeited in 1947   --- 

    P.S. For a year I've been pushed around and nade a fool of  like  Don Lute was , until the day ge died.. and now I know why. I couldn't make myself mail my coin to anyone.  Had I done  that my coin would have been discarded as a fake eliminating  any chance of further exposure.  What gets me is there no clear demonstration of the facts due to carefully characterized wording.   The truth shouldn't be too complicated to understan
    This would be a perfect column. You should right it and send it in to Both Numismatic News and Coin World. They love interesting research and new discoveries that their readers can search for!
  • CACfan said:

    Insider3 said:

    CACfan said:

    Let me guess, made in China.

    That would be my guess also. At first it looked like a softer strike (transfer) "Omega" with the main diagnostics present but very week. It would have made a great "Fake of a Fake" column and in my excitement, I posted the OP. Sadly, as soon as I examined it for photo's, I realized that what first looked like the diagnostic wormy tool marks in the hair (but very weak) were different. A real let down. :(

    "Mr. Chang" has produced some very deceptive fakes. This is not one of them. The dealer who bought it knew it was a C/F but got stuck for the premium the "Omega's" bring.
    Speaking of fakes, how can you determine if Bust, Seated, and Barber branch mint proofs/specimens are fake or real? Mainly, true PR's/SP's or merely processed business strikes? I have heard that your service has not certified any. I know that NGC and ANACS have each slabbed several and even stingy PCGS has deemed a few thus. Does your firm require documentation, have demanding requirements, or just always say no due to the attribution controversy? Even if documents were presented, how could anyone prove that they accompany a given coin?


    Not to duck out but I'd need to see the coin and any documentation would be helpful if it exists. Many of these coins already have pedigrees. UNFORTUNATELY, since 1986 many coins got slabbed as "Specimens" because they looked different. Now they have a track record.
  • Insider3 said:

    CACfan said:

    Insider3 said:

    CACfan said:

    Let me guess, made in China.

    That would be my guess also. At first it looked like a softer strike (transfer) "Omega" with the main diagnostics present but very week. It would have made a great "Fake of a Fake" column and in my excitement, I posted the OP. Sadly, as soon as I examined it for photo's, I realized that what first looked like the diagnostic wormy tool marks in the hair (but very weak) were different. A real let down. :(

    "Mr. Chang" has produced some very deceptive fakes. This is not one of them. The dealer who bought it knew it was a C/F but got stuck for the premium the "Omega's" bring.
    Speaking of fakes, how can you determine if Bust, Seated, and Barber branch mint proofs/specimens are fake or real? Mainly, true PR's/SP's or merely processed business strikes? I have heard that your service has not certified any. I know that NGC and ANACS have each slabbed several and even stingy PCGS has deemed a few thus. Does your firm require documentation, have demanding requirements, or just always say no due to the attribution controversy? Even if documents were presented, how could anyone prove that they accompany a given coin?


    Not to duck out but I'd need to see the coin and any documentation would be helpful if it exists. Many of these coins already have pedigrees. UNFORTUNATELY, since 1986 many coins got slabbed as "Specimens" because they looked different. Now they have a track record.
    I see, you would know it when you see it but have no specific prerequisites. And you are politely implying that you do not necessarily agree with certain other services' attributions. For me, the biggest issue is that the majority of TPG SP and PR obsoletes have weakly struck areas.
  • CACfan said:

    Insider3 said:

    CACfan said:

    Insider3 said:

    CACfan said:

    Let me guess, made in China.

    That would be my guess also. At first it looked like a softer strike (transfer) "Omega" with the main diagnostics present but very week. It would have made a great "Fake of a Fake" column and in my excitement, I posted the OP. Sadly, as soon as I examined it for photo's, I realized that what first looked like the diagnostic wormy tool marks in the hair (but very weak) were different. A real let down. :(

    "Mr. Chang" has produced some very deceptive fakes. This is not one of them. The dealer who bought it knew it was a C/F but got stuck for the premium the "Omega's" bring.
    Speaking of fakes, how can you determine if Bust, Seated, and Barber branch mint proofs/specimens are fake or real? Mainly, true PR's/SP's or merely processed business strikes? I have heard that your service has not certified any. I know that NGC and ANACS have each slabbed several and even stingy PCGS has deemed a few thus. Does your firm require documentation, have demanding requirements, or just always say no due to the attribution controversy? Even if documents were presented, how could anyone prove that they accompany a given coin?


    Not to duck out but I'd need to see the coin and any documentation would be helpful if it exists. Many of these coins already have pedigrees. UNFORTUNATELY, since 1986 many coins got slabbed as "Specimens" because they looked different. Now they have a track record.
    I see, you would know it when you see it but have no specific prerequisites. And you are politely implying that you do not necessarily agree with certain other services' attributions. For me, the biggest issue is that the majority of TPG SP and PR obsoletes have weakly struck areas.
    Not quite. I know nothing until I do my best to find the answer. Proof coins and Specimens have certain characteristics to start with. Next, professionals need to agree. Often times they don't. We had a 1927 5c that I was 100% positive was a specimen sent in by a collector as a normal nickel. No Professional inside or outside our company agreed. The coin had all the diagnostics, sharp strike, and PL "look" of the ones already slabbed but it went out No Decision. I told the submitter to sent it to another TPGS to get it slabbed.
  • Insider3 said:

    CACfan said:

    Insider3 said:

    CACfan said:

    Insider3 said:

    CACfan said:

    Let me guess, made in China.

    That would be my guess also. At first it looked like a softer strike (transfer) "Omega" with the main diagnostics present but very week. It would have made a great "Fake of a Fake" column and in my excitement, I posted the OP. Sadly, as soon as I examined it for photo's, I realized that what first looked like the diagnostic wormy tool marks in the hair (but very weak) were different. A real let down. :(

    "Mr. Chang" has produced some very deceptive fakes. This is not one of them. The dealer who bought it knew it was a C/F but got stuck for the premium the "Omega's" bring.
    Speaking of fakes, how can you determine if Bust, Seated, and Barber branch mint proofs/specimens are fake or real? Mainly, true PR's/SP's or merely processed business strikes? I have heard that your service has not certified any. I know that NGC and ANACS have each slabbed several and even stingy PCGS has deemed a few thus. Does your firm require documentation, have demanding requirements, or just always say no due to the attribution controversy? Even if documents were presented, how could anyone prove that they accompany a given coin?


    Not to duck out but I'd need to see the coin and any documentation would be helpful if it exists. Many of these coins already have pedigrees. UNFORTUNATELY, since 1986 many coins got slabbed as "Specimens" because they looked different. Now they have a track record.
    I see, you would know it when you see it but have no specific prerequisites. And you are politely implying that you do not necessarily agree with certain other services' attributions. For me, the biggest issue is that the majority of TPG SP and PR obsoletes have weakly struck areas.
    Not quite. I know nothing until I do my best to find the answer. Proof coins and Specimens have certain characteristics to start with. Next, professionals need to agree. Often times they don't. We had a 1927 5c that I was 100% positive was a specimen sent in by a collector as a normal nickel. No Professional inside or outside our company agreed. The coin had all the diagnostics, sharp strike, and PL "look" of the ones already slabbed but it went out No Decision. I told the submitter to sent it to another TPGS to get it slabbed.
    Thank you for the clarification. Thus, certification by any of the big four would certainly beat a Walter Breen certificate because he was just one expert.
  • Walter Breen was far and away one of the most knowledgeable numismatists of his time. The poor guy was surrounded and hounded for opinions much of the time when I saw him at coin shows. That included me looking for opinions on coins sent to the ANA's Certification Service. The man had major problems that tarnished his reputation and opinions. All the Johnny-come-lately-"Ex-Perts" love to find omissions and mistakes he made.

    Bottom line, things change with new research following the efforts of the dead. So some of Breen's letters may only have a historical value. Some of the stuff he wrote is as "factual" as a bunch of influential coin dealers making up "Specimen Strikes" out of thin air.
  • Insider3 said:

    Walter Breen was far and away one of the most knowledgeable numismatists of his time. The poor guy was surrounded and hounded for opinions much of the time when I saw him at coin shows. That included me looking for opinions on coins sent to the ANA's Certification Service. The man had major problems that tarnished his reputation and opinions. All the Johnny-come-lately-"Ex-Perts" love to find omissions and mistakes he made.

    Bottom line, things change with new research following the efforts of the dead. So some of Breen's letters may only have a historical value. Some of the stuff he wrote is as "factual" as a bunch of influential coin dealers making up "Specimen Strikes" out of thin air.

    Breen was definitely fatally flawed as a person. But much of his published research is backed by documents that he had gotten from the National Archives. Not everything that he wrote was his speculation or guesswork, which he often qualified as such.

    Despite his tarnished reputation, his personal copy of his Encyclopedia recently auctioned for about $37,500, even though other used copies are currently being offered on Ebay for as little $25.
  • Yikes! I own several new copies that cost me over $100 on Ebay. $25 is a steal, I may need to buy some to average down. This book belongs in every library.
  • Take a look at this and tell me what you think?  Apparently many years ago someone spoke highly of a coin similar to mine.  https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/71587-1943-s-copper-penny-die-filled-error 

  • I think you should send it to NGC to see if they agree with the "experts" who told you it was a 1943/2. Make sure you include all your research so they take a really good look. Let us know the results.
  • rdsimpson said:
    Since we"re talking about fakes .  It would be nice to see a column about  the 1942  Lincoln cents prewar  composition that was 95% Copper 4% Zinc and 1% tin  (Bronze )  that  changed  to 95% Copper and 5% zinc.

    Questions raised after rare  1943/42-S (Brass Alloy)  Lincoln Cent OverDate Variety was reportedly discovered . 

    First and foremost brass and bronze are both metal alloys, which means they are a combination of two or more different metals.  The Brass alloy is composed of copper and zinc  whereas bronze alloy  is made up of copper, zinc and tin. 
     

    After the production of the new zinc coated steel cents began on Abraham Lincoln's birthday - February 12, 1943 in the Philadelphia mint followed by the Denver and San Francisco mint in March  a few planchets used in 1942 got stuck in the hooper  causeing an extremely rare variety known as the "1943 copper cent. 

    Under emergency legislation  enacted in January  1942  "tin" was eliminated from the 1- Cent piece and an alloy of 95% Copper and 5% zinc was used , until  emergency legislation expired, as  specified by law, in 1947, the use of tin would  resumed. 

     Approximately,, one tenth of the normal  1% tin, in respect of law, was added back to the 1-Cent piece in 1947 because  during WWII tin was not available for coinage use. 

     According to the American Numismatic Association  " The Attack of Pearl Harbor in 1941 called America to war, which would drag on for 6 long years. As usual, when the war broke out demand for coinage spiked. At the time the Lincoln cent was composed of 95% copper, 4% zinc, and 1% tin."  [until] " the bronze composition was switched to brass in 1942  "95% copper and 5% zinc'  because copper and tin were in high demand needed for various armaments and weaponry"   This seemingly small change saved 100,000 pounds of tin for war efforts. The 40,000 pounds that the US mint had at hand was handed over to the War Production Board." 

    Because tin wasnt available for use during WWII in  December  1943 after the zinc coated steel cent was used in 1943 for only one year,  the mint  returned to the (brass) composition used in 1942.'  accoeding to mint records,  in December of 1943 it was announced that the zinc coated steel cent was  abandoned and the mint would  returned to the brass composition, used in 1942.  ---Where  it remained  from 1944 to 1946.. And  after tin was added back to the 1-cent piece  in 1947  the first 1943 copper cent was reportedly discovered by Don Lutes. 

    Unless someone comes up with an better explanation its my conclusion that most, if not all, previous 1942 and 1943 1-cent discoveries reported by major grading organizations  containing tin were  counterfeited in 1947. 

    When I contacted Pete Apple with my questions and concerns  his response definitely seems to fit the agenda     Pete Apple --- I am not aware if Tin in 1943 Cents.1943 Cent Compositi The composition of 1943 Cents is a low carbon steel which is magnetic. Low carbon steel formed the base of these coins, to which a zinc coating with a thickness of .0005-inch (12.7μm) was deposited on each side, electrolytically, as a rust preventative. (The coil stock was plated with zinc before the planchets were punched out, so original coins do not have plated edges). Dimensions were kept the same as cents for previous years, but weight was reduced to = 2.689g/2.754g +/- 0.130g (Heavier weight struck later in 1943). Composition was basically 99.97%Fe + 0.03% C. A Detailed analysis (by Carpenter Technology) of some specific 43 cents is shown in this table:
     
    Cheap steel for 1943 cents was coated with zinc by several processes, depending on which company was supplying planchets. Although the Mint specified thickness of zinc, the reality was that no one much cared. Steel strip was electroplated, hot dipped, hot rolled, heated and sprayed with molten zinc then rolled and just about any inexpensive process available. This inconsistency was also why the weight of 1943 cents was increased by 1-grain. This allowed extreme over- and under-weight planchets to be accepted as legal coins.



    P.S.  As you can clearly see my discovery was god sent and I know for a fact he's not a happy  camper for the way I've been treated so let this be the example--in jesus's name 




  • Insider3 said:
    I think you should send it to NGC to see if they agree with the "experts" who told you it was a 1943/2. Make sure you include all your research so they take a really good look. Let us know the results.
    I might consider showing it to NGC at a coin show, see what they say  person to person?
  • I was unaware that they still give authenticity opinions at the show table UNLESS Mark is having his Ask the Expert review. Good Luck.
Sign In or Register to comment.