1895 O morgan 1 1

[Terryw77]

Found this, looks like a fake to me. Date font seems off.  Should i pass?

Edited June 11, 2022 by Terryw77

[Henri Charriere]

Allow me, a certified rank amateur when it comes to Morgans, generally, and Carson City-mint-marked examples, in particular, to make an observation.

Your example is tough to pin down because of the wear pattern. Yes, the date looks problematic, but so do the nearby arrangement of stars, all of which lack acuity and definition.

On another thread (I am unable to locate) the A in AMERICA touches the wingtip resulting in what I call a distinct "contact" mark. Owing to my lack of expertise in this area, I refrain from commenting.)

I do not know why your post failed to elicit comment but I would caution you against throwing out the baby with the bath water. Taken as a whole, the elements otherwise exhibited by your coin ring true. This matter deserves further examination.  🐓 

[DWLange]

I'll simplify the matter---very fake.

[Henri Charriere]

May I ask where or from whom you purchased your coin -- and whether the seller, dealer or individual,  made any representations about the coin before you bought it? REFUND POLICY- Are all sales final, or is there a small window of opportunity to return, exchange or obtain a credit for it against which future purchases may be applied?

[I do not like the term counterfeit because it conveys no information. The natural response would be, "Why do you say that? And if your argument is weak, "I don't like the way the date looks," an experienced seller may very well point out the coin is old and displays uneven wear. 

 

[powermad5000]

Morgans being my favorite (NOT claiming to be an expert by any means), but what I note from the coin in the photos you provided is that the 5 seems to be misshapen and I would venture to say was added to a set of generic dies (most likely Chinese made). The O on the reverse also looks like it is too close to the ribbon as there is more space between the O and the ribbon on a genuine Morgan. I also see what appears to be small piles of metal around the date and the base of the neck that would not be on a genuine example. The denticles on the obverse don't seem to be full, and separated which would still be evident on a worn example and the denticles on the reverse seem to blend together toward the south in the area of the mintmark which would also be another red flag on this coin. Lastly, I noticed the chin at the neck on Liberty on the obverse seems to blend into the field of the coin suggesting the relief of the dies is not correct. Way too many inconsistencies on this coin.