by Jack Young for CoinWeek…
So, I ended up with another of the counterfeit 1836 Gobrecht Dollars apparently from the Chinese counterfeit ring located in College Station, Texas, in 2015.This one was initially listed by an eBay seller and collector of Chinese coins—the same seller from whom I purchased the latest raw 1806 Draped Bust Half Cent counterfeit. The seller stated that the Gobrecht Dollar came from the Netherlands; curiously, my example came from China but was also routed through the Netherlands—coincidence???
A friend who owned the genuine repaired example for these fakes notified me of the listing, and we both informed the seller it was bad and a match for the others, including my “certified” counterfeit example.
The seller then agreed to accept a MUCH lower offer from my friend—a red flag, IMHO, as well as his “NO RETURN See Description” noted in the listing title.
And a note: I did notify my contact at NGC about this one. They didn’t slab it, but to me, identifying the variety and labeling it as “altered surfaces” and NOT “counterfeit” does not tell the whole story of this one! And I have seen other sellers who apparently feel empowered that it does not say “not genuine” to list them for sale as if they are. In this case, the seller did note in the description “not 100% sure for the authenticity.” He also noted the buyer “will score big” if able to get it into a TPG holder.
So, my friend completed the purchase and asked if I would like to see it in hand to evaluate and compare to mine when received, and I was excited to have the opportunity!
As a point of reference, I add an image of my example as received back in 2017 and the main attribution points of these counterfeits.
The significance of the “blunted F” in OF results from the genuine source coin’s hole and subsequent repair that required the back of the “F” to be re-engraved and then noticeably different from a genuine undamaged example!
And results for mine from testing at a metrological testing facility as follows; I added today’s results from an in-hand review of this second one below:
And the pair of images of the subject example as follows:
Under a microscope, I took a number of comparison reference images to my example. The following image I nicknamed “crop circles” may have led to the TPG’s description of “altered surfaces”!
And a few comparison images: my first example on the left, the subject example on the right. The surfaces of this second example certainly appear “messed with,” possibly in an attempt to reduce some of the major common markers, but there are still plenty to see!
Several matching marks highlighted here from the hole repair of the genuine source example!
I then took this example for review to ICG (Independent Coin Graders); located in Tampa, I always schedule a visit when visiting family down there. I love to talk counterfeits with “Skip” Fazzari and the team and have my show examples slabbed in their yellow-labeled “educational” holders.
Just a note: ICG is the only TPG to offer the service of attributing and slabbing counterfeit coins.
I had shown images of the surfaces of this one to others in one of my Facebook groups, and the consensus was fingerprints. Skip looks at these under a microscope, and he responded, “Not a fingerprint, but ‘Looks like re-working on the die.’” So, maybe a new “fingerprint” of the next versions we see of these…
And the error on the label makes it even more valuable!
Again, I thank all of my friends and Dark Side enthusiasts for their help and support, including CoinWeek!
Best as always, Jack
The post Jack Young’s Fun with Fakes- Another 1836 Gobrecht Dollar appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.
