Blackdrone Posted June 26, 2010 Report Share Posted June 26, 2010 How can the value of this coin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted June 26, 2010 Report Share Posted June 26, 2010 How can the value of this coin? $30 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted June 27, 2010 Report Share Posted June 27, 2010 looks to me as two diffrent dies used on eagle side Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oregoncoin Posted July 1, 2010 Report Share Posted July 1, 2010 looks to me as two diffrent dies used on eagle side Excellent observation, one-kuna! I'm looking at the left talon - the thing the eagle is holding is clearly longer on the second strike - it's certainly a different die! If this were authentic, it would be a really interesting error, wouldn't it? Have any of you ever seen a double strike using two different dies? I've never even heard of that happening (except for double-denomination errors, which this isn't). Therefore, I think this is a damning indication that the second strike is from modern counterfeit dies, and the counterfeiter used an authentic 1731 denga undercoin to create a very deceptive $50 error from a $5 coin. Also, I've seen enough double struck dengas from this period on the marketplace that I sense this one doesn't look right. It's too even and carefully-done, you know what I mean? It has two clear dates, very little distortion of the metal, etc. Authentic ones look like they were struck recklessly, in primitive conditions, by drunk mint laborers with zero concern for quality control. This coin, by contrast, looks like the work of a careful counterfeiter who thinks that a cleaner strike will be more valued by collectors. This coin reminds me of the work of that guy on eBay from Kiev who sells fakes that are struck on authentic coins, or at least that guy's school of work, except this coin looks like it was meant to deceive, whereas that guy describes his work as modern and prices it accordingly. I'd be very interested to hear what my fellow forum members think about my theory... Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Julian Posted July 1, 2010 Report Share Posted July 1, 2010 Excellent observation, one-kuna! I'm looking at the left talon - the thing the eagle is holding is clearly longer on the second strike - it's certainly a different die! If this were authentic, it would be a really interesting error, wouldn't it? Have any of you ever seen a double strike using two different dies? I've never even heard of that happening (except for double-denomination errors, which this isn't). Therefore, I think this is a damning indication that the second strike is from modern counterfeit dies, and the counterfeiter used an authentic 1731 denga undercoin to create a very deceptive $50 error from a $5 coin. Also, I've seen enough double struck dengas from this period on the marketplace that I sense this one doesn't look right. It's too even and carefully-done, you know what I mean? It has two clear dates, very little distortion of the metal, etc. Authentic ones look like they were struck recklessly, in primitive conditions, by drunk mint laborers with zero concern for quality control. This coin, by contrast, looks like the work of a careful counterfeiter who thinks that a cleaner strike will be more valued by collectors. This coin reminds me of the work of that guy on eBay from Kiev who sells fakes that are struck on authentic coins, or at least that guy's school of work, except this coin looks like it was meant to deceive, whereas that guy describes his work as modern and prices it accordingly. I'd be very interested to hear what my fellow forum members think about my theory... A second strike from another pair of dies is highly unlikely and your theory of a modern fabrication seems probable. RWJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexbq2 Posted July 1, 2010 Report Share Posted July 1, 2010 What little I see of the top die looks authentic, but perhaps it is only a good die copy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted July 1, 2010 Report Share Posted July 1, 2010 A second strike from another pair of dies is highly unlikely RWJ if one follows a minting theory, yes, but here is real sample and i do not see a similarity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW Julian Posted July 2, 2010 Report Share Posted July 2, 2010 if one follows a minting theory, yes, but here is real sample and i do not see a similarity Perhaps one-kuna will explain what he is trying to say. RWJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one-kuna Posted July 9, 2010 Report Share Posted July 9, 2010 Perhaps one-kuna will explain what he is trying to say. RWJ I can just repeat what was said earlier - according minting theory (if one follows) - yes, it is inlikable, at the same moment I do not see similarity of same die Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.