• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

JYoung5050

Member
  • Posts

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. A well documented fake, the reverse is common for a series of these with different dates. I have images of half a dozen of these "1799" counterfeits with missing legend in my files, and wrote a Coin Week article on the "family".
  2. Definite current counterfeit; I wrote a Coin Week article on these, There is also a 1794 dated version with matching marks.
  3. It was great to talk with you there Charmy, and really good report as always! In answer to the note "I'd be interested to know your opinion or any other large cent collectors opinion on the quality of these fakes? Are they exceptionally deceptive or not, etc.. That is if there is enough info to base an opinion on from the available photos and TPG images, if available. I haven't looked myself yet but hope to have some time this weekend to study them", these are extremely deceptive! The 1798 "S-158" was originally thought to be a possible new Sheldon variety until a couple more with the same defects and diagnostics found. And the 1797 S-139 was considered one of the top 15 of the variety until also proven fake. Bad coins in genuine holders as genuine, certs have been deactivated. Counterfeits seem to be everywhere, including the Show Guide they had for us... Best, Jack.