Are there 200 year old 1804 fake silver dollars? 1 1

[ViscaBarsa]

Always wondered if there are old fakes (a little less silver for example) of the legendary 1804 silver dollar (or other equally as old coins)?  I know that sometimes, old fakes can still fetch a premium because they are almost the genuine article and there are so few of them.  If yes, how could a newbie find out?  Example, I have one such 1804 fake that has a 39.5 mm diameter, it weights 26.0 grams (just under the 26.96 grams) but it has signs of wear that could explain the difference. Magnets do not stick to it and when doing a resonance test - it passes the "silver" sound. It looks like a Restrike Class III with the larger gap between "States" and "Of" and has the correct lettering on the edge (worn on one side of the coin).  Other than the number 4 (it has a slight "t" at the end of the horizontal bar) and what looks like a die clash on the reverse near the last "A" of "America", the rest of it looks pretty good - like a F or VF condition coin.  Any chance someone was making these fakes say in the mid 1800s?? Or is this just a typical Chinese copy and they are getting better at making them?? PS: I appreciate honest and genuine feedback, but not condescending or sarcastic comments.

[Henri Charriere]

On 6/7/2024 at 9:01 PM, ViscaBarsa said:

 A....  I know that sometimes, old fakes can still fetch a premium because they are almost the genuine article and there are so few of them.  If yes, how could a newbie find out?

B.... Or is this just a typical Chinese copy and they are getting better at making them??....

X:  I would like to know why this Topic failed to make the cut.

Y:  (after review) Well, for one, the OP committed irreversible error (from which there is no return) solely on the strength of the extract I have taken the liberty of identifying  as Exhibit A, hereinabove. The query is inappropriate on this Forum where counterfeits are regarded as a serious matter and not something to profit from.

I do not know if this post is an "integrity test," or not, but I find the terminology used, suspect: resonance, Restrike Class III and die clash are not terms a Newbie (who just became a member) would be expected to use on a first post. 

All of the foregoing is book-ended by the extract I have identified as Exhibit B.  Members will recognize that old, familiar refrain "they" and "getting better at making them."

X:  You certainly set forth a persuasive argument.

Z:  The member has not been heard from since the day he became one and posted his one and only Topic.

[ViscaBarsa]

I would like to clarify a few things based on the exchange I just saw regarding my post. I imagine I am tagged as a “newbie” because a) this was my first post on this platform and b) I am not a professional coin collector. However, I have been collecting coins for years and therefore it does not mean I am inept at doing research and finding information and references to the coin that I had a question on. With enough research anyone would be able to learn about die clashes, and rotated obverses and any other deviation. There is a lot of info on the net. Also, my intent is in no way to profit or to perpetuate counterfeit coins. I bought the coin for $6 as a fun item to have. But I was (and still am) wondering if at one point, there were 200 year old fakes. I thought that this being a forum full experts, I would get some sort of feedback that said either “no and this is why” or “yes and here is a bit of a history lesson”.  The reason I have not posted anything new was in part because I had not received any emails that anyone had looked at my post and answered. Today I did and hence I am back on the forum. But I am a bit disturbed at the tone of some of the comments calling my post “suspect”. Really? Sorry if I have broken some unknown rule (hence the newbie part). Sorry if I offended anyone with my question. It was not my intent at all. I have seen coin dealers websites selling “period counterfeits” of Spanish 8 reales. Hence I wondered if the same happened back in the day with American silver coins. That is is.  I agenda, no suspicious inquiries. Just an honest and open question. I hope someone with a bit of kindness in their demeanour would be able to address this question. If the answer is a simple “no”. Okay. I will take that too. Thanks to everyone. 

[ViscaBarsa]

PS:apologies for the spelling errors. Sometimes the auto-correct feature messes things up. The last part should have read “that is it, no hidden agenda”

[Sandon]

    Welcome to the NGC chat board. I'm sorry that I didn't notice your topic previously. It probably was buried too far behind newer posts on the "All Activity" feature that I monitor daily.

    The coin you posted is almost certainly not a "contemporary" counterfeit, whether from the early 1800s to pass as money or from the 1850s to deceive early collectors. It is a crude and obvious fake with a very grainy surface suggesting that it was cast rather than struck, weak details, a rim that appears to imitate the "close collar" strikes of 1795-1803 (but not 1804 dated) Draped Bust dollars, and, as you noted, an incorrect "crosslet" 4 in the date. The positioning of some of the lettering and stars does not correspond exactly to either the so-called "original" or "Class I" (c. 1834) or the so-called "restrike" or "Class III" (c. 1859-70) 1804 dated "novodel" dollars, although the reverse appears to have been made in imitation of a Class III. It also does not resemble contemporary counterfeits of, for example, Capped Bust half dollars that are sometimes found and knowingly sought by some collectors. (I assume that you know that there were no 1804 dated silver dollars minted in or about 1804.)

   I saw crude counterfeits of "1804" dollars forty or more years ago.  They apparently have been made for some time as novelties or perhaps to deceive the very gullible. I have never heard of anyone seeking them for more than a nominal price.

Edited Tuesday at 12:23 AM by Sandon

[ViscaBarsa]

And two last comments. I posted the question on June 7. That was 3 weeks ago. hardly enough time for anyone to wonder “The member has not been heard from since the day he became one and posted his one and only Topic”. 
The last comment is to reassure everyone I am a Professional Engineer. And as such I adhere to a code of ethics that not only guides my professional life, but also my personal one. Anyone questioning my integrity for the original post, needs to step back and read it again without bias. Perhaps it was a mistake to join NGCs forum. 

[ViscaBarsa]

Thank you so much for the detailed answer to my querie. That is exactly what I was hoping and looking for. I now have a better understanding and historical background. This is the perfect answer. Thank you again for taking the time to provide context and details. I will save the information and add it as narrative reference. Perhaps if one day I have grandchildren and they find this coin in my collection they too will find the information interesting. Again. Thank you. 

[Sandon]

   @Henri Charriere regularly posts satire on these forums. I don't think that he means any offense, although you are not the first person to be offended by his quips, which if read "between the lines" often contain nuggets of humor, if not wisdom. 

[ViscaBarsa]

Thank you for the background. I too like to inject humour when appropriate but usually only once I have developed a connection. As a first time recipient of feedback, I did not have the benefit of knowing the source and I am not surprised I am not the first of take a step back. But I thank you for being open and transparent. Much appreciated. 

[Henri Charriere]

Looks like my reply struck paydirt!  I was not anticipating any response at all, and certainly not one as well-reasoned as yours.  Mystery solved!  I see you have caught the eye of Sandon, who as always, saves the day. A writer whose works I am fond of -- let me see if I can find the exact quote... -- aha!, wrote:

"Counterfeiting is a prehistoric form of gainful skullduggery. The idea of money was conceived somewhere on the other side of antiquity, and so was the idea of counterfeit money, but older, perhaps, by no more than a few minutes." -St. Clair McKelway. So there's your answer.  Belated Welcome to the Forum!  

[RWB]

NARA and other archival documents in my database imply that altered dollars of 1800-1803 began appearing not long after newspaper publicity concerning the value of "1804 dollars." Prior to 1860, almost all references to 1804-date coins wanted from the mint were 1804 cents or 1804 Eagles. Early gold coins were occasionally available from the mint after June 1834 because the Mint accepted these as deposits. However, no silver US coins were allowed in deposits, so the Mint never acquired these in quantity.

After about 1860 there was an increase in requests for the Mint to authenticate "1804" dollars...virtually all of which were altered dates. The earliest 19th century generation of American collectors communicated with one another and with Mint officers. They generally assisted in identifying specious collector coins, and the mint passed on information about circulating coin fakes (mostly gold) to this elite group of collectors.

Added --- Here are transcriptions of letters exchanged in 1860 about 1804 dollars being restruck.

 

Edited Tuesday at 04:57 PM by RWB

[powermad5000]

On 6/7/2024 at 8:01 PM, ViscaBarsa said:

Magnets do not stick to it and when doing a resonance test - it passes the "silver" sound.

Having just saw this post tonight, the response by Sandon who is quite knowledgeable regarding early silver dollars is great to go off of.

The one thing that does concern me, however, is this practice of hitting a coin to see if it sounds like a certain metal. In no way should a collector EVER slam another coin or object into a coin or drop a coin from height onto a solid surface if such coin could potentially have any kind of value and try to use this method to determine authenticity or to use it as any other kind of test on a potential collector coin.

Perhaps you already knew this would have no detrimental effect to the coin in question, but I wanted to make my statement for the benefit of those who come behind and read this thread in the future that the practice of hitting or dropping a coin to see what sound it makes is not a way to perform any type of test whether it be for authenticity or any other purpose. If this is done on a coin that may have potential value, it is sure to greatly diminish such value.

[RWB]

One small addition to my prior comment. Whenever asked about mintage of early silver dollars, the Philadelphia Mint invariably responded with the quantity delivered in each calendar year. But because dies were routinely used until they failed, a coin dated "1803" might easily have been produced or delivered in 1804 and thus reported as an "1804-date coin."

Edited Tuesday at 04:38 PM by RWB

[RWB]

By the 1880s the Mint Bureau had received so many inquiries about the quantity of 1804 dollars that the Superintendent in Philadelphia had a special search of mint records for 1804 coinage. This was performed H. W. Crotzer, Chief of the Post Office Building Watch. The records were stored in the Philadelphia PO Building.

Edited Tuesday at 04:49 PM by RWB

[ViscaBarsa]

Thank you for the added information. It is very interesting to find out how things happened back in the day. I also agree that the sound test would not be something to do with any coin of value. Since the coins I have are of low value and all in various degrees of circulated condition, a slight tap on the edge is not going to hurt them any more than they already are. But again, I am not endorsing the practice. As always, if in doubt, don’t do it. I just cannot afford a $1300 coin testing machine. Lottery has not landed yet. 

[J P M]

On 6/25/2024 at 12:49 PM, RWB said:

By the 1880s the Mint Bureau had received so many inquiries about the quantity of 1804 dollars that the Superintendent in Philadelphia had a special search of mint records for 1804 coinage. This was performed H. W. Crotzer, Chief of the Post Office Building Watch. The records were stored in the Philadelphia PO Building.

Wow just look at the penmanship of this letter. I like it more than the information. 

Edited Wednesday at 12:56 AM by J P M

[RWB]

The longhand style is generally known as "business handwriting." A somewhat simpler version was taught in most schools and academies, and a test in legible penmanship was required for US Mint clerk positions. Eventually typing skill obviated handwriting as a required ability.

With very few public or private school students required to master longhand, the number of people who can read old documents is declining quickly. This means that most US Mint and Treasury documents prepared before 1900 are inaccessible to young modern researchers.

[powermad5000]

On 6/25/2024 at 11:50 AM, ViscaBarsa said:

I just cannot afford a $1300 coin testing machine.

Most of us cannot afford this. That is why we defer ourselves to dealers and those who specialize in the hobby who can afford such equipment and testers to help.

[powermad5000]

On 6/25/2024 at 9:40 PM, RWB said:

The longhand style is generally known as "business handwriting." A somewhat simpler version was taught in most schools and academies, and a test in legible penmanship was required for US Mint clerk positions. Eventually typing skill obviated handwriting as a required ability.

With very few public or private school students required to master longhand, the number of people who can read old documents is declining quickly. This means that most US Mint and Treasury documents prepared before 1900 are inaccessible to young modern researchers.

It has been stated that currently grade schoolers and some high schoolers cannot read handwriting. 100 percent. There are even people in their 20's and 30's who currently cannot read handwriting. My nephew is 28 and cannot read it.

I can read it and the dinosaur I am still uses it to make lists, write checks (CHECKS!!!!!! NOOOOOOO!!!!! WHO STILL WRITES PAPER CHECKS??????!!!!!!!     :O     ) and put sentiments into greeting cards.