1884 3CN: What are the chances this is real?

[RGT]

With the numbers and quality coming out of China I suspect that this is too good to be true.

 

UNC 1884 3CN

 

Consignment coin. All sales final.

[Dcoin]

The surfaces look strange from the presented picture. Also the shot was not taken head on so there could be something hidden. Lastely, the light striking between the Of and America looks defused indicating possible whizzing or chemical treatment.

 

maybe ask the seller for another set of pics?

[Prethen]

In all likelihood it's a Proof.

[physics-fan3.14]

I am going to say there is little doubt in my mind that it is a counterfeit for several reasons:

 

1. The surfaces look rough, not lusterous and natural.

 

2. The denticles on both sides, but primarily the obverse from K10 through K1, are weakly struck, mushy, and do not look real.

 

3. The piece just gives off "not good" vibes.

 

It may be real, but I would certainly not buy it. No question.

[James_OldeTowne]

It looks genuine from those images... but then again, why post such weirdly angled images ? I'd pass simply because the auction "terms" are garbage.

[Coindude]

I'd ask Bartlesvilleok about this. He's probably the resident expert on 2 and 3 centers.

 

Also, I agree with the possibility of this being a proof. The reverse especially looks proof like.

[MarkFeld]

I am going to say there is little doubt in my mind that it is a counterfeit for several reasons:

 

1. The surfaces look rough, not lusterous and natural.

 

2. The denticles on both sides, but primarily the obverse from K10 through K1, are weakly struck, mushy, and do not look real.

 

3. The piece just gives off "not good" vibes.

 

It may be real, but I would certainly not buy it. No question.

On the other hand, there is little doubt in my mind that it's genuine.

 

However, while it even looks like (edited) there is some chance that it could be a business strike, it is more likely a much more common Proof. And the images are shot in such a way that they don't allow for a good look at the surfaces.

[physics-fan3.14]

Mark, and others, for the purposes of education, could you explain what makes you think this is a proof (and genuine)? I've always heard that mushy denticles such as this piece were a big tipoff of a fake, and I especially wouldn't expect such weakness on a proof.

[MarkFeld]

Mark, and others, for the purposes of education, could you explain what makes you think this is a proof (and genuine)? I've always heard that mushy denticles such as this piece were a big tipoff of a fake, and I especially wouldn't expect such weakness on a proof.

Odds are better that it's a Proof, merely because there are very few high quality business strikes out there. I have seen mushy denticles on a good number of those coins, so that characteristic doesn't concern me in the least. Additionally, the surfaces and design details look like what I would expect on a genuine coin. Nothing about it looks odd.

 

Please don't take my comments as flippant - the coin just doesn't set off any alarm bells for me, even though I sometimes make mistakes.

[James_OldeTowne]

Mark, and others, for the purposes of education, could you explain what makes you think this is a proof (and genuine)? I've always heard that mushy denticles such as this piece were a big tipoff of a fake, and I especially wouldn't expect such weakness on a proof.

Unfortunately, die characteristics are not as foolproof (pun intended) as one might hope, because the same dies were used on both proof and business strikes. The most consistent pup (pickup point) is the edge and the rim of the coin. The edge of most proofs is polished. I hedge this statement, because it is possible for a business strike to have been struck on a blank with a polished edge. But overall, it is a pretty reliable indicator. Also, the rim of a proof will most often show concentric circles that parallel the edge of the coin. The circles look like long, lazy circular die polish, but were actually imparted as part of the process of polishing the blank planchets. Once you compare a business strike to a proof, side-by-side, you will always be able to remember the distinction. But again, it isn't a foolproof diagnostic.

 

The most perilous thing of all to remember is that sometimes, the mint simply put nice business strikes into proof sets, or substituted them for orders for a proof coin, if no proofs were available. This happened far more often with the three-cent silver pieces, though.

 

TPGs have had an absolutely awful time of consistently distinguishing proofs from business strikes for this series. And besides that, the slab insert usually hides the edge, preventing you from being able to form your opinion. This is why I absolutely will not buy a purported business-strike three-cent nickel or silver in a PCGS or ANACS slab, or a non-edgeview NGC slab. This has severely limited my buying opportunities over the years, but I'd rather not take a chance. I've been burned one time, and won't be again!

[RGT]

This has been more educational than I had hoped. Thanks to all for the discussion.

 

I didn't see anything that jumped out at me that made me think this coin was fake but the terms and the odds of it beiing a business strike made me think something was not right. I knew there was some interest and expertise in these coins here.

 

It looks like someone with a gambling nature that was willing to bid on a possibly genuine hairlined proof could end up with a nice business strike.

[bartlesvilleok]

I've always heard that mushy denticles such as this piece were a big tipoff of a fake, and I especially wouldn't expect such weakness on a proof.

 

While at first glace it does look like a proof this part would concern me. The roughness and dentials could both be because the photos / plastic also.

 

Here is a few photos of a NGC edgeview proof 67 1883 . you can see some of both in the photo from the glare on the plastic. Looks different in hand

 

The part that would concern me the most is a ebay seller with a feed back of over 2000 that deals in coins and post it as UNC then says he doe not know and no returns. It is almost like he knows it is a proof but wanting to sale it as a UNC.

 

Might check some of his other auctions. Are all of them no returns or just this coin or coins like it that could go both ways.

 

Good luck to any that are bidding on this. I am keeping my AU55 I have and thanking god it was not an 83 or 85 that I need.

 

[michael]

 

1884 3CN: What are the chances this is real? zero %

 

 

coin is not a genuine usa federal mint product from philly

 

no brainer

[michael]

minted somewhere in china the last month or so

 

 

one of the so called mucho better counterfeits from more advanced CAD technology that have come out again most recently fresh from the presses of the ''boo" mint, no; not the one in peking but from the one hung low mint somewhere in china

 

 

 

 

see my bi line below

[RockMyAmadeus]

What I don't understand....and maybe some of you better historians can help me...is why did the mint bother to strike business strikes of coins like this anyways?

 

Proofs I get, and by the 1880s, collecting was in full swing, and everyone wanted a specimen from the mint. No problem.

 

But 1700 business strikes? 1000 for 1885? By that time, wouldn't that amount to a single day's output? Did they have orders for the coin that were, in some unfathomable way, unfillable by the 1881s?

 

Why did this happen? Why would the mint only make 100 business strike 1875 Eagles? And 1872, 1873, 1876, 1877? What possible function could this serve commerce? Why not simply be "proofs only" for those years?

 

Did they just need to keep mint employees occupied?

[MarkFeld]

1884 3CN: What are the chances this is real? zero %

 

 

coin is not a genuine usa federal mint product from philly

 

no brainer

Sorry, Michael, but I think that is incorrect and bologna.

[L1ncolnF4n]

First glance for me said fake...second glance made me think...third said REALLY GOOD FAKE. I am by no means versed in this area, but comparing it to the genuine 3c I've seen, the obverse seems just too off. In the posted NGC graded PR on this topic, the device is a smooth polish, and on the ebay piece it appears almost blotchy, but that might just be the angle I'm seeing.

 

I wouldn't buy it, let alone that I don't buy 3c's but I think you could do better even if it is genuine.

[1946hamm-migration]

It's real and a proof. Compare to this one.

 

 

[RGT]

Someone paid a strong price for an ungraded proof then.

[L1ncolnF4n]

It's real and a proof. Compare to this one.

 

 

 

I'm sorry but I don't see that as a particularly attractive coin. I don't see wear so I can understand the technical grade of 65, but eye appeal wise, those rims do me in.

[MarkFeld]

It's real and a proof. Compare to this one.

 

 

 

I'm sorry but I don't see that as a particularly attractive coin. I don't see wear so I can understand the technical grade of 65, but eye appeal wise, those rims do me in.

That's really beside the point - those images help show that it's likely the coin listed on Ebay is genuine.

[michael]

1884 3CN: What are the chances this is real? zero %

 

 

coin is not a genuine usa federal mint product from philly

 

no brainer

Sorry, Michael, but I think that is incorrect and bologna.

 

ok i respect that...........just my opinion based on the strange photos sight seen could be different but all i have here are the photos

[MarkFeld]

1884 3CN: What are the chances this is real? zero %

 

 

coin is not a genuine usa federal mint product from philly

 

no brainer

Sorry, Michael, but I think that is incorrect and bologna.

 

ok i respect that...........just my opinion based on the strange photos sight seen could be different but all i have here are the photos

Michael, when you say things like "zero %" chance of the coin being genuine, based on those images, I have to call you on it. Especially when I think you are mistaken in your ultimate conclusion.

[RockMyAmadeus]

What I don't understand....and maybe some of you better historians can help me...is why did the mint bother to strike business strikes of coins like this anyways?

 

Proofs I get, and by the 1880s, collecting was in full swing, and everyone wanted a specimen from the mint. No problem.

 

But 1700 business strikes? 1000 for 1885? By that time, wouldn't that amount to a single day's output? Did they have orders for the coin that were, in some unfathomable way, unfillable by the 1881s?

 

Why did this happen? Why would the mint only make 100 business strike 1875 Eagles? And 1872, 1873, 1876, 1877? What possible function could this serve commerce? Why not simply be "proofs only" for those years?

 

Did they just need to keep mint employees occupied?

 

Anybody...?

[James_OldeTowne]

Anybody...?

I don't know the answer, but can take a wild guess, and offer two reasons.

 

I suspect the Philadelphia mint was required to engrave dies for every year that a coin was legally authorized, whether or not they actually expected to strike very many (or any). Therefore, even though demand for three-cent coins was negligible after 1878 or so, they had to have dies on hand "just in case". Thus, new obverse dies were made each year.

 

In addition, I would guess they had to satisfy demand, small as it may have been, for proof coinage. I'll also guess that after proof strikings were satisfied, the dies were relegated to limited use for business strikes. This would explain why so many business strikes are fully prooflike.

[michael]

1884 3CN: What are the chances this is real? zero %

 

 

coin is not a genuine usa federal mint product from philly

 

no brainer

Sorry, Michael, but I think that is incorrect and bologna.

 

ok i respect that...........just my opinion based on the strange photos sight seen could be different but all i have here are the photos

Michael, when you say things like "zero %" chance of the coin being genuine, based on those images, I have to call you on it. Especially when I think you are mistaken in your ultimate conclusion.

 

mark; i respect that and i totally understand

 

and if i had a second chance i would not change my original statement based on what i have seen in photos on ebay

[RockMyAmadeus]

Anybody...?

I don't know the answer, but can take a wild guess, and offer two reasons.

 

I suspect the Philadelphia mint was required to engrave dies for every year that a coin was legally authorized, whether or not they actually expected to strike very many (or any). Therefore, even though demand for three-cent coins was negligible after 1878 or so, they had to have dies on hand "just in case". Thus, new obverse dies were made each year.

 

In addition, I would guess they had to satisfy demand, small as it may have been, for proof coinage. I'll also guess that after proof strikings were satisfied, the dies were relegated to limited use for business strikes. This would explain why so many business strikes are fully prooflike.

 

Thanks James, your first reason is very compelling. Hadn't thought about that.

 

To expand on your second reason, could it be that the Mint director figured "well, we've used the dies to satisfy proof demands, and the dies are still serviceable, might as well strike as many business strikes as we can, so as not to waste the dies"...? Which might explain the varying mintages year to year, as well as the proof only years?

[RWB]

Coins were struck to demand of the Treasurer of the US or on demand of specific depositors. It was not uncommon for the Treasurer to request $10,000 in eagles on Tuesday and on Wednesday decide they weren’t needed, but the coins had already been struck.

 

The US Mints did whatever they could to accommodate depositors of gold and silver. If a depositor requested payment in gold dollars or some other denomination, and none were available, then the mint would often strike them.

 

[James_OldeTowne]

Coins were struck to demand of the Treasurer of the US or on demand of specific depositors. It was not uncommon for the Treasurer to request $10,000 in eagles on Tuesday and on Wednesday decide they weren’t needed, but the coins had already been struck.

 

The US Mints did whatever they could to accommodate depositors of gold and silver. If a depositor requested payment in gold dollars or some other denomination, and none were available, then the mint would often strike them.

 

Roger, I believe we are thinking along the same lines. I would immediately assume the mint automatically had to make dies for silver coinage each year, on the chance that a depositor would demand conversion of some of his silver into currency. But I wasn't sure that the same line of reasoning would apply to nickel and copper coinage. So to phrase this as a question: Could or would depositors also request to have their non-precious metal coined?

 

Also, if I understand what you are saying, a depositor could, for example, deposit $3.00 in silver, but ask for 100 nickel three-cent coins instead of silver, correct?

[Raybo55]

Proof or not, it looks genuine to my eyes.