Bought three coins. I was excited to get them until....

I am guessing either plated or painted.

Very large pics!

Flaking
Uneven surface
Even unnatural shine

There was also another coin with a similar "look" but without the flaking.
The third coin was ok fortunately.

It's hard to tell from the photos but there's the possibility that the flaking is actual flaws in the original planchett. Maybe one of our error experts will have a better idea.

Hard to tell from the photos, but does the middle one (uneven surface) show evidence of clashed dies?

None that I can tell.

I made the pics smaller if that has prohibited some from looking at these. Is there any type of diagnostics one can do short of scratching the surface?

That closeup does look odd but I am not sure exactly what it would be.

Looks more cast than struck, weak and flat on the high points (if it was wear it shouldn't have that much lustre!). Very grainy surface on the legends there (bottom right hand corner). Although that's the first time i've ever seen one of those so don't take my word for it.

What are those strange raised surfaces near the eagle's(?) head?

I couldn't find an image of the peso to play with, but I believe you have the 1956 peso with the front of a building on the reverse. The lines on your coin seem to align with the base of the building and the bottom of the doors? I could be wrong without having the coin to inspect, but I still think it looks line an artifact of a clashed die. You might want to superimpose an image of the reverse over the obverse to see if the marks align.

A clashed die would account for the lack of strenght on the strike there due to the lack of metal available to strike up fully. Are those lines near the bird's head raised or sunk? If it's a clashed die they should be sunk in due to the metal being sucked into the other die upon striking. (Or so my experience with British coins showing ghosting illustrates anyhow)

Exactly what aroused my suspicion. At first I though it might have been dipped, but when I saw that flake-like area, I began to think it was even worse.




I wish I new! There are other areas like that also.

Yes it is. Here is the reverse:

Best thing you can do with these coins of yours is to weight them and check against what they should weigh. Probably the best determining factor when it comes to circumstances like these.

If the weight is light by a gram or so, then they are fakes. If the weight is more or less spot on then it is more likely than not that the coins are genuine but struck using dirty or damaged dies at the very end of their life cycle.

Hmm... on a somewhat related topic, I have a Bolivian 50c from the 1890s that has rough surfaces. Otherwise fine. Perhaps die problems?

I'm thinking China myself.

Although as you point out very worn dies can make coins look like this. Sometimes it can be tough to tell from a photo, but the weight should sort it for you.

Could be, have you got a picture?

I'll have to find it first...

The scale is on the way!

That could be from a die breaking up though in it's dying breaths. Although you'd need an error person to diagnose something like that.

I just finished reading on the web the newest book about fake coins (german)

It looks like the majority of the fakes are prooflike with microscratches because they polished the coins after pouring them in a centrifuge like contraption
(lost wax process and then pouring and augmenting the density buy having a motor swing the mold like a centrifuge )
Weight and composition may be right but this process leaves a coin that is slightly shrunk in diameter and it has to be polished

The polishing was done to hide the somewhat uneven surfaces but let microscopic lines


http://www.moneytrend.at/wmf/index.html

Are you sure these coins were not lacquered/laminated? It looks an excess of wax/lacquer to me...

Jose

Without the coin in hand and making photographs of exactly the same size, I can't be sure about the clashed dies. However, in working with your photographs, the features in the field align with the reverse design. The pattern is not an exact match, but its close (hence the problem in not having the coin in hand). I photographed one of my coins with clashed dies as an example. The coin, a Weimar Republic 1923 200 Mark aluminum follows:



Note the traces of the clashed dies on either side of the eagle's head. To align the reverse and obverse dies, the reverse die must be properly rotated (in this case medal alighment) and flipped horizontal to reproduce the dies in oppostion to one another. Superimposing one over the other, you can see where the raised imagery from the reverse die created the image in the field on the obverse die,

[attachmentid=1176]

Yes Bill but doesn't clashed dies create a subsidence look on the eagle side? If metal has flowed away from the eagle side and into the side with the 200 on, then the marks on the eagle side are slightly incuse.

In Sisu's case the bumps next to the bird's head are actually raised up in relief, if it had been a case of clashed dies then they would be incuse.

I believe i'm right to think that?

Yes, I agree. I stand corrected. The reverse of the Columbian piece has little in the way of flat fields, and the varying texture (relief) is somewhat different from a traditional coin die. Depending on how hard they struck and how the metal flowed, I'm assuming it could create some unevenness in how it impacted the obverse die. But, on further reflection, I agree that it is unlikely.

That leaves fake as a more likely explanation.

Not that my opinion is worth anything but here it is: My first impression before reading the thread was
1) imperfect alloy mix
2) clashed die
As to authenticity, mic it and weigh it. Sincerely, Mike

I do see what could potentially be marks indicating a clashed die. The flaking of metal is called a lamination error. Some of the planchet peels up an falls away on occasion.
Have Fun,
Bill

I was Wondering if it could be ( forgive me for Suggesting this.) Counterfeit?

Here is a different shot of the area above the bird:



And here is a close up of the text at the bottom of the coin: strange looking "bubbles"

The more photographs you produce, the more anamolies appear. I would really want to examine three or four of these side by side to understand what's going on if the coin is genuine. The striations around the head of the eagle don't look right. The surface texture of the field above the eagle's head doesn't look right. The raised areas that I thought were clash marks, still look like such, but they should be incuse now that I see the side shot. The raised areas at the base also remind me a clash marks, but again they are raised. The other option would be that the piece is struck on a previous coin and you see the remains of the host. But, that doesn't explain the details around the head, the surface texture, or the bubbles in the points around the rim (look below the S and the P). Interestingly, the doubling in the letters at the top indicate a half way decent cast if it is cast. Without the coin in hand and without knowing what other pieces look like, I would have to say a cast piece based on the traits visible in your latest images. The granularity along the rim and in the fine incised lines along the rim can't be a die struck product unles the die was rusty, in really bad shaped, and poorly polished before being used to strike the coin. All a possibility, but I suspect highly unlikely in the 1950s.

Where did you buy this piece? Any possibility it comes from China?

The flaking coin is a lamination error.
The other coin is a die polishing error. An overzelous die polisher got to involved with that die. I don't see any design on the reverse that resembles that pattern on the front.

As i said way back on this thread. I'm afraid to say i think you've got some cast copies there. The question i have been dying to ask is how are the edges? (I.e does it look like excess metal has been filed off?)

I've seen alot of fake £1 coins in change and these coins you picture have the same kind of distinguishing marks that the quids have.

1) The raised bumps (could be from a die breaking up, but i doubt it, as there's just so much going on with that coin).

2) The unnatural lustre

3) The wear looks more like weakness of strike, weakness of strike perhaps due to lack of pressure? Or perhaps minimal to no pressure as you'd get with a cast coin.

4) The legends at the bottom right appeared to have parallel lines on the top surface, as might be seen on Chinese cash coinage.

5) But the biggest piece of evidence that everyone has overlooked is that you have three of them all the same. One coin with 'errors' like this then maybe, but three? They would all have had to have come from the same die set and have been together since they left the mint. And the chances of that are? (Unless they're producing all their coins from knackered dies)

Realistically i smell a dead rat.

The edges are actually intact. Too intact IMO. Usually with coins that have lots of lustre remaining, the edges are usually somewhat toned/darkened from people hold them by the edges. This one is completely shiny on the edges.

I've seen alot of fake £1 coins in change and these coins you picture have the same kind of distinguishing marks that the quids have.




Sorry if I have not been clear on this. ALL the images are of the same coin except the 200 mark posted by bill of course.

No i realise that they are on the same coin. However i'm sure you said you'd bought three of these coins and they were all a bit suspect if not necessarily the same. (If they were all exactly the same then they'd be from the same die set), if they are all showing similar problems but are not identical then it means the mint they're from (if real) are using some real dud dies.

They couldn't all be errors (well they could, but i'd think it unlikely) is what i meant.

Sorry ignore that above, you said the third coin was okay, but the first two were a bit flakey. I'm with you now.

I purchased these from a US seller. Where they acquired them I have no idea. I voiced my concerns with the seller immidiately -even before I posted this thread- and suggested that they examine that avenue more closely. I have purchased from this person before with no problems. And I was immidiately offered a full refund ( minus shipping) and to keep the coins -no hassles whatsoever.

I am just now trying to determine whether these are tampered coins, fakes, or just perhaps strange looking.

The second coin was a different coin altogether also. However, it has the same kind of over-lustrous shine to it like the peso, with no flaking though. It is a Chinese dollar:
Obverse
Reverse

Second M in MEMENTO is a bit blurred other than that i can't really say as i have never seen one of these before.

Incidentally the H in Birth appears to be doubled.

I finally got my more precise scale working.


Krause lists it as 25.00g and it weighs 25.42g. Is that within normal deviation or could that support my "plating/painting" theory?

Well, i'm still going with "Lacquer job" for coin number one!
For the "memento" restrike (the dies for these were used to the limit, so variations occur), i would say that, if the coin has the right weight (or around that), smells like silver and do not have rough edges, then its OK.

Jose