A curiosity

[Davide]

http://cgi.ebay.it/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewIt...e=STRK:MEWAX:IT

 

 

Does anyone have any idea why this coin has received only one bid and, in my opinion, was "sold" to a much lower price than the real value of coin?

[grivna1726]

http://cgi.ebay.it/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewIt...e=STRK:MEWAX:IT

 

 

Does anyone have any idea why this coin has received only one bid and, in my opinion, was "sold" to a much lower price than the real value of coin?

In my opinion, at $1500.00, it "sold" for exactly $1500.00 more than it is worth.

[Davide]

Thanks Grivna, I understand

Davide

[oregoncoin]

Looks like a modern counterfeit to me. That's what y'all think, right? At least this one didn't fool many (if any) people, unlike all of the apparently counterfeit Alexander III and Nicholas II rubles selling on eBay lately.

[one-kuna]

Looks like a modern counterfeit to me. That's what y'all think, right?

would you pls be more specific ?

[Davide]

Hello, I must say that my doubts were not concerned authenticity (I seemed genuine).

Rather the fact that the value of that coin, if authentic and in that grade, is of at least 5.000 usd. But my knowledge, on this type of coin, is very low. That is why I opened the discussion. I trust the opinion of Grivna and I would also curious to know more details, although I know that is never easy for an expert to explain why and how.

Davide

[oregoncoin]

would you pls be more specific ?

 

Mostly, grivna, I'm trying to bump up my number of meaningful posts, so I can post a few hundred coins that didn't make the cut into my main collection ;-) but to answer your question...

 

My first impression was that it "has the look" of a modern Chinese counterfeit, but after taking another look, I don't know. I'm in the 90% counterfeit, 10% authentic camp right now.

 

On the one hand, it looks counterfeit to me because it seems to have fine granularity on the obverse, which is an indication of casting. Maybe the coin was cast, or maybe the planchet was cast and then struck with modern dies modeled on a real coin. It looks like the granularity was smoothed-over and tooled. It also looks like it doesn't have wear; more like the coin that was used to make the dies was EF, which accounts for the loss of detail. The obverse lettering is weak on the inside, which seems wrong, and the letters and denticles aren't as sharp as I expect from an original. The planchet itself seems like it's modern; it's too thick and of uniform thickness, with squared edges. I'm used to seeing these thinner, irregular, with laminations and indications of being struck on planchets that were not properly annealed. Finally, the edge lettering is funky like a roller-coaster. It's supposed to be created by striking the coin in the collar. I'm not used to seeing them look like this. I don't even know if it's possible to have a collar that would produce an edge like this.

 

On the other hand, on second look, it may be authentic because the reverse sort of looks struck and old. I also don't know much about this series, so maybe this is how most of them look. I didn't compare it to any pictures of known originals in catalogs. Perhaps I've always handled fakes in the past, and I wouldn't know a real one like this if it bit me in the tail. I donno ??? :-)

 

I respect your thoughts and opinions, Grivna. What do you think about it?

[grivna1726]

Mostly, grivna, I'm trying to bump up my number of meaningful posts, so I can post a few hundred coins that didn't make the cut into my main collection ;-) but to answer your question...

 

My first impression was that it "has the look" of a modern Chinese counterfeit, but after taking another look, I don't know. I'm in the 90% counterfeit, 10% authentic camp right now.

 

On the one hand, it looks counterfeit to me because it seems to have fine granularity on the obverse, which is an indication of casting. Maybe the coin was cast, or maybe the planchet was cast and then struck with modern dies modeled on a real coin. It looks like the granularity was smoothed-over and tooled. It also looks like it doesn't have wear; more like the coin that was used to make the dies was EF, which accounts for the loss of detail. The obverse lettering is weak on the inside, which seems wrong, and the letters and denticles aren't as sharp as I expect from an original. The planchet itself seems like it's modern; it's too thick and of uniform thickness, with squared edges. I'm used to seeing these thinner, irregular, with laminations and indications of being struck on planchets that were not properly annealed. Finally, the edge lettering is funky like a roller-coaster. It's supposed to be created by striking the coin in the collar. I'm not used to seeing them look like this. I don't even know if it's possible to have a collar that would produce an edge like this.

 

On the other hand, on second look, it may be authentic because the reverse sort of looks struck and old. I also don't know much about this series, so maybe this is how most of them look. I didn't compare it to any pictures of known originals in catalogs. Perhaps I've always handled fakes in the past, and I wouldn't know a real one like this if it bit me in the tail. I donno ??? :-)

 

I respect your thoughts and opinions, Grivna. What do you think about it?

I think your reply is intended for one-kuna. I've sent you a PM.