any new info. on the 1902-o micro o morgan$? any still slabbed by pcgs/ngc/anx?

[michael]

vam-3

top 100 vams

1902-o micro o morgan dollar?

 

that caused quite a kerfuffel at the grading services

 

are any still slabbed by PCGS NGC and ANX (ANACS)?

 

what are the grade ranges?

 

did DEMAND go down when it was discovered back in early 2005 that these were clever contemporary counterfeits?

 

does anyone know who cut the dies or made these coins?

 

is there still any current interest/demand for this contemporary counterfeit

[MarkW]

While there are some previously slabbed 1902-O VAM 3 Morgans that show up on occasion, the reputable TPGs will not slab any more. No one knows exactly when, or by whom, the 4 different years of "privately made" micro O Morgans were minted. Attached is an interesting article from the company ATS regarding these coins.

 

http://www.pcgs.com/News/Pcgs-Announces-Contemporary-Counterfeit-Status-Of-1896-o-1900-o

 

 

[DWLange]

At NGC, we knew these were fake back in the late 1990s. Skip Fazzari, who was then with NGC, concurred with my opinion. I tried to convince the VAM enthusiasts that the 1896-O, 1900-O and 1902-O Micro O dollars were fake, but they were in denial for several more years.

 

To avoid stepping on delicate toes, we agreed in-house to simply return any such pieces without stating that they were fakes or commenting on the variety in any way. Now, of course, we do state that they are "Not Genuine" whenever submitted, because that fact is widely accepted.

[thebeav]

So, from the sound of this thread, other than the micro 'O', there aren't any other diagnostics on these ?

 

Paul

[e1cnr]

has anyone done spectral analysis on these?

 

I am curious of any reason to make a contemporary counterfeit if the cost of the ingredients makes the profit slim...

[RWB]

The profit was considerable - 30% to 40% - more if made during the 20s and early 30s

 

At $0.70 per oz of Ag, 3.9 oz would make 5 silver dollars at a cost of $2.73 for the metal. Fake dies, a planchet cutter and a drop press were all that were needed. The kind of melting, casting and rolling necessary was readily available in small machine shops.

 

If the maker produced 100 good pieces per day, that amounted to $30 to $40 profit each day or $150+ a week. Not bad when $1,000 a year was a good wage.

[michael]

At NGC, we knew these were fake back in the late 1990s. Skip Fazzari, who was then with NGC, concurred with my opinion. I tried to convince the VAM enthusiasts that the 1896-O, 1900-O and 1902-O Micro O dollars were fake, but they were in denial for several more years.

 

To avoid stepping on delicate toes, we agreed in-house to simply return any such pieces without stating that they were fakes or commenting on the variety in any way. Now, of course, we do state that they are "Not Genuine" whenever submitted, because that fact is widely accepted.

 

thank you david! i have heard this remark before verbally and in print ................................................................ sometimes it is hard to change collectors minds with the FACTS when something soooooooo popular has been collected and entrenched for soooo long but eventually most all are dragged kicking and screaming into reality

 

current x-ray spectrograph analysis and/or destructive testing ( or whatever it is called) of those that were tested found the silver content to be between 90%-93%

[RWB]

"...sometimes it is hard to change collectors minds with the FACTS ... but eventually most all are dragged kicking and screaming into reality..."

 

Yeah -- that's certainly true!

[Conder101]

At $0.70 per oz of Ag, 3.9 oz would make 5 silver dollars at a cost of $2.73 for the metal.

And silver eventually got down to $0.24 an oz so the 5 silver dollar would have had only $0.94 in cost of the metal. Then 100 pieces a day would be $81.20 profit a day or $487.20 profit a week.

 

Even with full silver content these were not only quite profitable, but they would also be much more likely to be accepted and so easier to pass than a base metal piece.

 

So, from the sound of this thread, other than the micro 'O', there aren't any other diagnostics on these ?

Yes there are. All of the micro O dollars were made from the same reverse die and it show some identical contact marks on all examples.

 

The 02-O also has damage to the obv dies that shows on most if not all pieces. That damaged 02 obv is also known paired with at least one other reverse die that is NOT a micro O. If the VAM people do enough die marriage tracking other products of the counterfeiter could be identified. Whether this has been done I do not know, I do not follow VAM's.

[michael]

as already stated the tilted o mintmark is much smaller than normal and most mirco o 1902-o morgan dollars circulated heavily so the wear hid the identifying marks for 100 years

 

all counterfeit micro o 1902-o morgans have a really faint and shallow raised line from the exact point of the neck to the edge this is from a die crack from the host coin used for the obverse

 

the date is mushy and many odd shaped raised dots surround the numbers in the date

 

 

the reverse used is copied from the 1899-o morgan dollar vam-6 reverse

 

also it was as was already said extremely profitable to counterfeit a morgan dollar even with full weight and fineness and it is logical to think that the 1902-o micro was more than likely actually being produced around the issue date on the coin 1902

 

and this actually makes SENSE...........................

 

why??

 

as silver dropped hugely to 47 cents in 1902 as china dumped silver on the market in order to raise money to pay the boxer rebellion indemnity and if a morgan dollar was .7734 troy ounce net pure silver which means in 1902 a morgan dollar contained 36.3 cents WORTH OF SILVER wow hugely profitable

 

and morgan dollars did heavily circulate in the circa 1902 period and was quite a sum of money at the time!!

 

also in the 1930's during the depression silver was in the middle to higher 30 cent range but i dont think silver dollars circulated like they did in 1902 so i think these micro o 1902-o morgan dollars again were made in the circa 1902 era but i draw my own conclusions here as per my unscientific opinion

 

but in agreement many numismatic experts that say these micro o counterfeits were more than likely made circa 1902

 

other than that there are more questions than answers with this enigmatic contemporary counterfeit morgan dollar rare in its own right and also fooled the services for years along with the VAM community

 

these are highly prized by the morgan dollar and VAM collectors; especially so if still in their grading services holders and are scarce in their own right and i would love to know who made theses and where but so far these answers are lost to time

 

i think? one of only a handful of federal mint coins disavowed by the slab services AS ALL MICRO O 1902 MORGANS ARE CIRCULATING CONTEMPORARY COUNTERFEITS

 

interesting coin to say the least

 

 

[messydesk]

If the VAM people do enough die marriage tracking other products of the counterfeiter could be identified. Whether this has been done I do not know, I do not follow VAM's.

A significant amount of research has been done on these. There are currently close to 20 different die marriages known for this family of contemporary counterfeits. Those without micro Os can still be found in current TPG holders. The earliest known occurrence of one being in a collection is the early 1940s. Date of manufacture seems most likely to be before 1921, as those coins would have been more plentiful as host coins. Also, host coins dated 1896 would have been quite worn after decades. Anything more specific would be pure conjecture at this time. Fun and plausible conjecture, perhaps, but conjecture nonetheless.

[michael]

Those (1902) without micro Os can still be found in current TPG holders.

 

and are still being graded as such

as these are genuine original mint products

[messydesk]

I was referring to the counterfeits with normal Os.

[Conder101]

The earliest known occurrence of one being in a collection is the early 1940s. Date of manufacture seems most likely to be before 1921, as those coins would have been more plentiful as host coins. Also, host coins dated 1896 would have been quite worn after decades. Anything more specific would be pure conjecture at this time.

Back shortly before PCGS finally decided they were fakes, there were some articles published in the numismatic press (I don't remember if it was Coin World or Numismatic news) that discussed the diagnostics of the micro O's. It included a news article from the early 20th century that warned about counterfeit 1896 silver dollars were in circulation. One of the diagnostics the news article mentioned for identifying them was that they had a small LOWERCASE O mintmark. I think that might have been the first identification of the micro O counterfeits.

[messydesk]

If you can help bird-dog this article, I'd much appreciate it. I'll forward this information to a couple other people who would also be very interested.

[RWB]

Here's the earliest I've found so far that refers to the "lower case 'o' " These were all dated 1888, according to the article. [New York Times March 13, 1898. p.4]

 

[RWB]

Other articles in the 1890s discuss the use of silver alloy better than .900 fine and discovery of drop presses, hydraulic presses and other equipment that might include a reducing lathe in counterfeiters' workrooms. Nothing I found links the "o" to the people arrested with the production equipment.

 

 

There are contradictory statements above. One says the "o" reverse [prototype was an 1899 "o", the article says the coins were dated 1888 (as reported in 1898), and the third says all counterfeits shared the same reverse.

 

Is it plausible that the prototype reverse was a pre-1896 small "o" ?

[messydesk]

Would have had to have been 1880. Curiously, there are two different genuine mint mark shapes for 1888 and 1889.

[RWB]

...both ovals of some sort, aren't they? Looking at contemporary newspapers and printed documents, lower case "o" tends to be nearly circular rather than a reduced size upper case "O".

 

I found no other articles using the key phrase, but I do not have access to contemporary Denver newspapers.

[messydesk]

Both 1888-89 mint marks are "upper case" (i.e., neither is small). One is round with a wider center, one is oval with a narrow center. The oval one hadn't been used since 1884. So like the later micro O counterfeits, with two different genuine mint marks used for 1888, the counterfeiters chose an anachronistic one.

[RWB]

I doubt the counterfeiters cared. They simply paired a reverse with any-date obverse. With multiple dates in use, they would raise less suspicion. Just a thought.

[messydesk]

Yes. Not so much a choice as a coincidence that both counterfeiters accidentally getting it wrong. The $64,000 question is where are the fake 88-Os?

[RWB]

I searched some VAMworld posts and found references to 1888 micro "o" dollars - but most appeared to be poor quality fakes from hand cut dies....however, I did only a cursory search. I'll leave the details to VAMpires and their kin.