An Interesting not-PCGS 1893-O Morgan Dollar

Every counterfeit coin tells a story. Sometimes the clues appear immediately. Other times they reveal themselves slowly, one diagnostic at a time.

Recently, a friend contacted me with an intriguing question. He asked if I would look at an 1893-O Morgan dollar he had purchased on eBay. After the purchase, he submitted the coin to PCGS for grading. However, the coin did not receive a grade. Instead, PCGS returned it body-bagged as counterfeit.

Naturally, that raised questions.

The Coin Arrives for Examination

At first, I only saw photographs of the coin. Unfortunately, the images were not ideal. As a result, they did not reveal much. It proved difficult to determine whether anything was actually wrong.

Therefore, my friend offered to send the coin to me for an in-hand review. I gladly accepted.

Once the coin arrived, I spent part of my morning examining it carefully.

The first tests appeared encouraging.

The coin weighed 27.0 grams, which falls within the expected range for a Morgan dollar. In addition, a Sigma Metalytics analyzer confirmed the presence of silver.

However, those results alone cannot confirm authenticity. Counterfeiters increasingly produce silver coins with the correct weight.

Therefore, the real work begins with die diagnostics.

The Reverse That Should Not Exist

The most revealing issue appeared on the reverse.

Authentic 1893-O Morgan dollars use the C3 reverse hub. This design includes a distinctive wing gap and berry placement that specialists recognize immediately.

However, the coin I examined displayed a C4 reverse.

That detail immediately raised a red flag.

After consulting with Morgan dollar specialist Jack Riley, I confirmed that the New Orleans Mint did not transition to the C4 reverse until 1901. In other words, a genuine 1893-O cannot have this reverse configuration.

That alone strongly suggests the coin is not genuine.

The Mintmark Problem

The diagnostics did not stop there.

Two reverse dies appear on genuine 1893-O VAM varieties. Yet the mintmark on this coin did not match either example.

Specifically:

• The position was incorrect.
• The shape was wrong.
• The tilt did not match known dies.
• Taken together, those differences create another major authenticity problem.
• Odd Details in the Date

Closer inspection revealed additional irregularities.

Both the “D” in DOLLAR and the “3” in the date looked unusual. The letterforms simply did not match the known characteristics of genuine coins.

Each issue alone might raise suspicion. Together, they form a clear pattern.

Tracing the Coin Back to the Seller

After finishing my examination, I emailed my findings to my friend. He then asked me to share the diagnostics on the CoinTalk forum, where we both occasionally participate.

During that discussion, I asked about the eBay seller who listed the coin. My friend sent the seller’s ID.

The results were eye-opening.

The seller had 12 negative feedback responses. Many of those complaints involved bait-and-switch counterfeit coins, including three Morgan dollars.

One of those negative feedback posts included images of a supposed 1895-O Morgan dollar the buyer received.

That is when things became especially interesting.

The 1895-O coin showed the same unusual reverse seen on this 1893-O.

At that moment, the pattern became clear.

A Lesson in Comparing Listing Photos

After reviewing the situation, my friend realized something important.

He had not compared the coin he received to the original listing photographs.

That step can prevent many problems. Counterfeit sellers often rely on that oversight.

Naturally, I attempted to contact the seller. Unfortunately, I received no response.

However, one thing is certain.

That seller now sits firmly on my eBay watch list.

A Counterfeit with Educational Value

Although this story began with disappointment, it ended with something positive.

My friend decided to donate the counterfeit coin to the “Dark Side” collection. The coin now serves as an educational tool.

That decision helps collectors learn from real examples. In many ways, that may be the best possible outcome.

Because every counterfeit coin offers a lesson.

The key is learning how to read the clues.

Why This Story Matters for Collectors

Counterfeits continue to appear in online marketplaces. Even experienced collectors can encounter them.

Therefore, collectors should always remember three important safeguards:

Third-party grading services remain an essential defense.

Die diagnostics often reveal the truth.

Comparing listing photos to the received coin can expose bait-and-switch fraud.

In this case, a single incorrect reverse hub told the whole story.

And that story reinforces an important lesson for Morgan dollar collectors everywhere.

Always trust the diagnostics.
Best,
Jack.

The post When the Reverse Is Wrong: A Counterfeit 1893-O Morgan Dollar Case Study appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.

ANS Acquires an 1880 Contemporary Counterfeit Five-Dollar Note

The American Numismatic Society (ANS) has added an 1880 contemporary counterfeit five-dollar United States Note to its collection. The acquisition is notable. The Society first reviewed this note nearly forty years ago and declined it then.

The note, now cataloged as ANS 2024.37.1, entered the collection in 2024 after a new examination revealed it was counterfeit and had an unusually well-documented history.

An Unlikely Artifact in the Trinity Church Archives

The counterfeit note came from the Trinity Church Archives. The archives preserve records documenting the history of Trinity Church and its parishioners. Located at the head of Wall Street, Trinity Church has played an important political and social role in New York City for more than three centuries.

The collection includes baptismal, marriage, confirmation, and burial records dating back to 1749. Alexander Hamilton is among the notable figures buried in the churchyard. Genealogical material makes up most of the archive. For that reason, the presence of a counterfeit five-dollar bill stands out.

A 1986 Inquiry, and a Missed Identification

In February 1986, Trinity parish Archivist and Curator Phyllis Barr contacted the ANS. She wrote to Richard Doty, then Curator of Modern Coins and Paper Money. Barr enclosed a black-and-white Xerox copy of a five-dollar bill she had found in the archives.

Barr described the note as being in “fragile condition.” She added that it appeared to be “splitting in two as if it were in two layers.” She asked whether the note had any monetary value.

Doty replied that the bill was not worth much because of its poor condition. Based on the surviving correspondence, the black-and-white photocopy likely prevented a proper identification. Doty did not recognize the note as a contemporary counterfeit at that time.

Reexamination and Donation in the 2020s

Nearly four decades later, Marissa Maggs, Director of Trinity Church Archives, offered the note and the 1986 correspondence to the ANS as a donation.

Upon examination, Dr. Jesse Kraft, Resolute Americana Assistant Curator of American Numismatics, identified the bill immediately as a circulating counterfeit. The Society added the note to its reference collection of forgeries, fakes, and counterfeits, often referred to as the “black trays.” Items with clear historical context hold particular research value within this collection.

Physical Construction and Visual Clues

Collectors often refer to this type of counterfeit as a “woodchopper.” The engraving quality is poor. The portrait of Andrew Jackson at left appears crude. The central vignette of a pioneer family, man, woman, baby, and dog, is present but barely defined.

Barr’s original description from 1986 proved accurate. The counterfeit consists of two separately engraved sheets adhered together. This construction explains the layered appearance and the tendency to split.

The motive for this method cannot be confirmed. However, the added thickness may have helped imitate the weight and feel of a genuine note.

The obverse design provides the clearest evidence of counterfeiting. Aside from the red seal and blue serial numbers, the note lacks tonal variation. It appears almost entirely black and white. Genuine notes display subtle grayscale effects produced by advanced engraving techniques. The counterfeit does not. This difference reflects the simpler printing methods used by counterfeiters.

Historical Background of the Five-Dollar United States Note

The Bureau of Engraving and Printing first issued United States Notes in 1862. These Legal Tender Notes remained in production until 1971. As a result, they represent the longest-running form of U.S. paper money.

In 1869, the five-dollar denomination adopted a new design. It featured Andrew Jackson’s portrait at left and a pioneer family vignette at center. The series changed again in 1875. That redesign introduced the reverse seen on the ANS counterfeit example.

A Warning Against the Crime It Represents

The reverse includes a forceful legal warning. It threatens fines of up to $5,000, imprisonment of up to fifteen years at hard labor, or both for counterfeiting-related offenses.

The warning targeted organized counterfeiters, often called “coneymen.” These groups operated across specific regions of the United States during the nineteenth century.

Enforcement, Circulation, and Final Preservation

The United States established the Secret Service in 1865 to combat counterfeiting. The agency did not assume responsibility for presidential protection until after the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901.

Despite these efforts, this counterfeit five-dollar note circulated successfully for some time. The exact circumstances remain undocumented. It is possible the note entered Trinity Church through a Sunday collection. It may also have arrived as a holiday donation, such as a Christmas or Easter gift. Given the note’s purchasing power at the time, either scenario would have involved a meaningful sum.

What is certain is its long archival life. The note remained at Trinity Church for nearly a century. It now resides permanently in the ANS collection, where scholars can study it as part of the broader history of American paper money and counterfeiting.

* * *

* * *

The post The Curious Case of the Counterfeit Five Dollar Bill from the Trinity Archives appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.

“As if the Chinese counterfeit coins in fake PCGS slabs isn’t bad enough, now there appears to be a fake Chinese PCGS website to verify them….” Jack Young

On December 20th, Jack Young posted another of his now-infamous and critical “Fun with Fakes” posts to the PCGS Message boards titled “The Trifecta, CN Counterfeit Coin, Slab and Website ! – Collectors Universe”.

Jack has been in the forefront of exposing and reporting these fraudulent coins and the sellers that proliferate across eBay.

After his post, Jack forwarded the information to CoinWeek so we could give the problem even more exposure.

But before we repost Jack’s findings, in the link above, we want to provide some additional context and backgound on the issues and the problem from CoinWeek’s perspective.

Chinese Counterfeit Coins Entering the Market

Over the past decade, mass production of counterfeit coins in China has escalated. Factories in places like Guangdong and Fujian provinces manufacture replica U.S. and world coins, often made of base metals but plated to mimic silver or gold.

These include Morgan Dollars, Trade Dollars, early U.S. gold issues, and even modern commemoratives.

Many are extremely deceptive, showing correct dates, mintmarks, and even simulated wear patterns.

Some are sold directly on Chinese e-commerce platforms such as AliExpress or Taobao, where they are openly labeled as “replica” or “souvenir,” but later resold internationally as genuine.

Counterfeit PCGS Holders (Slabs)

Counterfeiters have moved beyond coins, they are now replicating PCGS and NGC holders themselves.

These fake slabs are visually convincing, complete with holograms, barcodes, and QR codes.

The counterfeiters often copy valid certificate numbers from real PCGS-graded coins and print them on the fake labels. Or they print Fake Certificate numbers, that when scanned, the QR code leads to a fake PCGS website.

The Fake Verification site imitates the real one and displays fabricated verification data (as in this case that Jack uncovers).

Tell-tale signs:

Incorrect font alignment or slightly off-center text on the label.

Weak holographic seals or incorrect color shifting.

Barcodes or QR codes that redirect to “.cn” or imitation domains, rather than www.pcgs.com.

Fake PCGS Chinese Verification Sites

A particularly dangerous trend is the appearance of mirror-clone PCGS websites hosted in China.

These sites look identical to the genuine PCGS Cert Verification Page.

When a fake cert number is entered, the page returns a false confirmation with images of a real coin, a screenshot copied from the legitimate PCGS site.

The real PCGS site for verification is https://www.pcgs.com/cert/,  any domain other than pcgs.com is fake. (such as pcgs-cn.com, pcgsn.com, pcgs.cn, pcgsverify.cn, etc.)

The eBay Connection

eBay remains a major global marketplace for counterfeit coins.

Despite efforts, eBay is overwhelmed by the volume of listings, many from China-based sellers.

Counterfeits are often described as “reproductions,” “souvenir coins,” or listed in misleading categories to avoid detection.

Even worse, some sellers use fake PCGS holders to sell high-value “slabbed” coins, targeting collectors who assume authenticity based on the holder.

Collector Warnings:

• Always verify PCGS or NGC certifications directly on their official websites, never through links in the listing.
• Be cautious of prices significantly below market value or sellers located in China or Hong Kong.
• Prefer buying from PCGS Authorized Dealers or well-reviewed U.S.-based sellers.

Now on to Jack’s latest discovery.

Fun with Fakes- The Trifecta, CN Counterfeit Coin, Slab and Website!

As if the Chinese counterfeit coins in fake PCGS slabs isn’t bad enough, now there appears to be a fake Chinese PCGS website to verify them.

A friend alerted me to the following listing on the Bay this past week:

And here is a “Past eBay listed counterfeit in a counterfeit not-PCGS slab”

The listing included these interesting other images:

The seller had ended the listing based on being told it is a counterfeit, and I started a review to try to determine what was going on here!

So, I started with the “PCGS” slab and some quick checks. Using my on-line barcode scanner I checked the front barcode:

Like many similar bad slabs, the barcode was gibberish and would not scan. Next, I went to the PCGS website to check the noted cert number: 69025723

Note from the genuine PCGS site for the cert # look-up

And another bad sign, that cert # “was not found”. So, my next step was to try to read the reverse label QR code. And just a note, many of the previous counterfeits we have documented similar to this one had a QR code that read the cert # correctly but noted the genuine PCGS CN site. A previous example read like this:

Typical previous QR code to pcgs.cn site. And then this one:

Note different website for this cert!

Different result than expected I do NOT recommend readers going to the site shown, but if you did this is what comes up:

Fake “PCGS” site, image, etc.

WOW, now we have something apparently new to be concerned about with these…

I did notify my contacts at PCGS for a heads-up,  as well as posting this it on the CU Forum. My contacts at PCGS acknowledged they were now aware and reviewing.

I checked the fake site Christmas evening, and got a message that indicated the site was now unavailable!  Nice Christmas present if it lasts!

I did continue to dig a bit more and found the domain name Registrar for PCGSN.com  was Alibaba Cloud Computing LTD, dba HiChina (www.net.cn)  It seemed ironic the
“Registrar” has Alibaba in the name! Then I checked the Whois Record at https://www.whois.com/whois/pcgsn.com.   Shown below Is what I got.

Best, Jack

The post Fun with Fakes – The Trifecta, Chinese Counterfeit Coins, Slabs and Website! appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.

In the mid-1940s, the United States Mint struck one of the most unusual forms of American gold ever produced: anonymous gold disks made not for collectors or commerce, but to pay oil royalties to Saudi Arabia. These pieces sit at the crossroads of geopolitics, bullion, and numismatic mystery, and remain among the most counterfeited U.S.-minted gold items today.

Unlike commemoratives or circulating coinage, these disks emerged from a quiet diplomatic crisis. Saudi Arabia demanded gold. The United States needed oil. The result became bullion disguised as money.

Gold for Oil: Why These Disks Exist at All

During World War II and its aftermath, the Arabian American Oil Company, better known as ARAMCO, owed the Saudi government millions of dollars each year in oil royalties. The contract required payment in gold, not paper currency.

That requirement collided with reality.

The United States still fixed gold at $35 per ounce, while open-market prices soared far higher overseas. ARAMCO could not legally buy gold at market rates, yet Saudi Arabia refused further payment in dollars. The standoff threatened oil supplies vital to the postwar world.

Washington chose an extraordinary solution. The Philadelphia Mint struck special gold disks, bullion pieces shaped like coins but never authorized as legal tender. These disks carried weight and fineness statements instead of denominations, allowing the U.S. government to satisfy both gold restrictions and Saudi demands.

Not Coins, Yet Made Like Coins

Collectors still debate how to classify these pieces. They feature an American eagle and official mint markings, yet no face value appears anywhere. The Mint treated them as bullion, not coinage.

Numismatists later dubbed them “the coins that weren’t.”

They circulated briefly in Saudi Arabia, traded alongside sovereigns, and passed hand to hand. That everyday use blurred the line between money and metal, and later fueled confusion, misattribution, and counterfeiting.

Two Issues, One Purpose

The Mint struck two primary formats to meet ARAMCO’s obligations:

Small Gold Disks (1947)

These were minted at the United States Mint in 1947 for payment to the Saudi Government for oil drilled from Saudi lands by the hybrid American oil venture that had located oil in Saudi Arabia in the early 1940s.

Despite being an American issue, the gold was struck in the exact fineness and with the same weight as a British Sovereign.

The smaller version entered limited circulation in Saudi Arabia and traded for roughly $12, or 40 silver riyals. Public use ended quickly once counterfeits appeared.

Large Gold Disks (1945–1946)

Saudi Arabia favored British standards, so the Mint matched sterling gold instead of the U.S. 90% standard.

Aramco issue. Struck as payment for usage of Saudi oil fields, this American issue has the unique characteristic of following the fineness and weight of the British gold monetary system. Being struck in 22 carat gold and having the weight of 4 Sovereigns, these 4 Pund pieces equaled four British gold sovereigns in weight and fineness.

A highly interesting crossover type, four Pound issues are far less common the one Pound type.

Specifications (Genuine Large Disk)

• Gross Weight: 493.1 grains
• Net Gold Weight: 452.008333 grains
• Gold Fineness: .916⅔ (sterling standard)
• Actual Gold Weight: ~0.942 troy ounces
• Edge: Reeded
• Mint: Philadelphia
• Composition: Gold with copper alloy

Both versions shared the same minimalist design and bullion intent.

Why So Few Survive

Survival rates remain low despite mintages exceeding 90,000 pieces.

Most disks followed one of three paths:

• Melted into bars and sold overseas, often in Bombay or Macao
• Redeemed and restruck into Saudi sovereigns after 1951
• Melted following Saudi oil nationalization in the 1950s

As a result, genuine examples today appear infrequently and command strong premiums—especially when certified.

A Counterfeiter’s Favorite Target

These gold disks attract counterfeiters for three reasons: high intrinsic value, simple design, and widespread unfamiliarity.

Historical Counterfeits

Swiss and Lebanese operations began striking imitations as early as the late 1940s. Those fakes pushed the smaller disks out of circulation in Saudi Arabia within just a few years.

Modern Bullion Fakes

Authorities in Saudi Arabia continue to shut down online sellers offering copper-plated “gold disks” at steep discounts. Many mimic ARAMCO-era pieces to appear historical.

Collector-Level Deception

Some modern counterfeits use transfer dies taken from genuine disks. These pieces often fool casual buyers and even experienced collectors at first glance.

How Experts Spot Fakes

Professional graders and counterfeit specialists focus on surface texture first. See and NGC Counterfeit here.

Genuine U.S.-minted disks show distinctive pebble-like fields, a subtle, uneven texture caused by original Mint preparation and striking pressure.

Red flags include:

• Texture fading near lettering
• Smooth or glassy fields
• Weak detail around weight inscriptions
• Incorrect edge reeding depth

Because these diagnostics require experience, experts strongly recommend that buyers ONLY purchase NGC or PCGS certified examples.

Why This Coinage Still Matters

These disks tell a story no other U.S. gold can tell.

They represent American foreign policy pressed into bullion, and show how far the government would go to secure oil supplies. This also challenges definitions of what a “coin” really is.

No other U.S. minted gold piece exists solely because a foreign government refused paper money.

That singular origin makes ARAMCO gold disks one of the strangest, and most compelling, chapters in American numismatic history.

Final Thoughts

If you want a U.S.-minted gold piece that never belonged in circulation, never carried a denomination, and never appeared in a Mint annual report, this is it.

Just make sure it’s real.

In a market flooded with counterfeits, authenticity remains everything, and these secret Saudi gold disks reward careful collectors who know what they hold.

The post America’s Strangest Gold: The Secret Saudi “Coins” Struck by the U.S. Mint for Oil Payments appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.

Counterfeit U.S. coins are nothing new. But in today’s market, modern Chinese-made fakes, often housed in convincing counterfeit holders, are pushing the boundaries, and threatening unsuspecting collectors at every level.

This article highlights just a few of the Carson City (CC) dollar counterfeits currently circulating, many of which were reviewed during a FrostByte “Chit Chat” session on December 7th. These fakes aren’t just poor reproductions; they’re often sophisticated deceptions that exploit gaps in collector knowledge and marketplace oversight.

Let’s dig into some examples, and more importantly, how to spot the red flags.

The “Impossible” Seated Liberty Dollars

Among the most glaring examples are Seated Liberty dollars allegedly from Carson City, but dated before CC coins were ever struck.

This is a  historical impossibility. The “CC” mintmark wasn’t introduced until 1870, and the “In God We Trust” motto wasn’t added until 1866. Yet here we are, with afantasy coin boldly sporting both the wrong dates and design elements.

These fakes often feature what’s known as the “Dotted N” in “UNITED”, a telltale marker I previously discussed in a CoinWeek article on counterfeit diagnostics. Additionally, the reverse dies don’t match any known genuine Trade dollar varieties, but they do match each other, suggesting a shared counterfeit origin.

The “Common Reverse” Trick

A deeper dive reveals that many of these fakes, whether Seated Liberty or Morgan dollars, share identical reverse dies, especially around the “CC” mintmark area. That’s a major giveaway.

This tactic of using a generic counterfeit reverse across many dates is common in these modern fakes. Once you’ve identified the reverse as bad, you can often dismiss any coin using it.

Here’s one from my own collection:

And why stop at 1874? I’ve seen “CC” dollars as early as 1791, a date that never existed for any U.S. dollar, let alone from Carson City.

The “Notched R” and More Fake Varieties

Another family of fakes uses what I call the “Notched R”, found in Liberty Seated fakes like the 1875-CC dollar Trade Dollar. I covered this in detail for the Gobrecht Journal, published by the Liberty Seated Collectors Club.

These fakes again feature the same bad reverse die, making the shared traits easy to track once you know what to look for.

The Morgan Dollar Epidemic

The Morgan dollar series, especially Carson City issues, is rife with counterfeits. The 1881-CC has become one of the most commonly faked dates, though all CC dates have been targeted.

In fact, during an earlier investigation, I tracked at least 13 different sellers offering fake 1881-CC Morgans, all using the same counterfeit PCGS certification number: 27886283. The labels were high-quality forgeries, but the coins, once compared, all showed the same incorrect reverse for the date.

This eventually connected with a Coin Community forum thread from 2018, which discussed raw fake 1881-CC Morgans, again using the same bad reverse.

IMAGE
Caption: Counterfeit 1881-CC Morgans using shared die characteristics and forged holders

Know Your VAMs — They Can Save You

When vetting a Morgan dollar, I always start with the reverse design and the mintmark placement. For Carson City coins, the size and position of the “CC” is often the easiest way to rule out a fake.

One of the most valuable tools I use is VAMWorld, an online database of known die varieties (VAMs). I’ve even created crib sheets for myself that show what legitimate Carson City reverses should look like.

By comparing the fake’s reverse to genuine examples, the differences become obvious. However, I’ll refrain from detailing all of them here. The purpose of this article is to protect collectors, not help counterfeiters improve their product.

1921 Morgans: Genuine Certs, Fake Coins

One of the most deceptive examples I’ve seen is a 1921-P Morgan dollar, graded MS64 by PCGS.

The genuine coin’s label reads “1921 Morgan” to distinguish it from 1921 Peace dollars. However, counterfeiters cloned this label and used it to house their fakes—complete with forged coins inside.

Eventually, counterfeiters adapted, and newer versions of these fakes began appearing without the “Morgan” label, trying to stay ahead of the hobby’s scrutiny.

Recent Listings: Spotted and Flagged

Counterfeit Carson City dollars continue to surface in online auctions. Just recently, an example of a fake 1879-CC dollar was listed on HiBid, complete with counterfeit certification and packaging.

Thanks to vigilance from collectors and the Anti-Counterfeiting Educational Foundation (ACEF), the listing was flagged and pulled.

This is the reality we live in. These coins look legitimate at a glance and are often sold through high-traffic platforms to reach unaware buyers.

Final Thoughts: Knowledge Is Your Best Defense

The counterfeiters aren’t slowing down. They’re getting better, faster, and more coordinated. As they refine their dies and fake slabs, it’s up to us, the collectors, dealers, and researchers, to stay ahead.

If you’re buying a Carson City coin:

• Verify the reverse die details
• Use tools like VAMWorld
• Double-check certification numbers using the grading service’s online tools
• Buy from trusted sellers
• And most of all: ask questions. A coin that looks too perfect—or too good to be true, deserves a second look.

I’ll continue publishing updates and discoveries as new fakes emerge. Until then, stay sharp, and stay skeptical.

Best as Always,

Jack

The post Fun With Fakes: The Ongoing Battle Against Counterfeit Carson City Dollars appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.

CoinWeek has been burning the midnight oil, turning out informative articles after articles on popular coins in their Collectors Guide series, and one particular article happened to catch my eye just as I was investigating a recent suspect 1893-CC Morgan dollar!

At the time, Charles Morgan worked for CoinWeek. He presented specific, relevant information on each subject coin or series featured, and I used the 1893-CC version as part of my counterfeit research for my subject examples.

The 1893-CC Morgan Dollar Investigation

So, on to the subject example of this episode, and as all who know me know, I start with ATTRIBUTION (even though this one has an “across the room” feature identifying what it is!).

With Carson City Morgan dollars, I typically start with the reverse and the size/placement of the “CC” mint mark; my go-to place for that has been the online resource VAMWorld, and I have made crib sheets for myself of the known reverses by mint mark and VAM variety.

When I speak of a Morgan VAM, I am using the term to mean known variety basically, but the Wikipedia definition is as follows:

Questionable Listings in Fake Holders

And the subject eBay listing:

And the “across the room” feature I mentioned, well, there is a well-known counterfeit “CC” reverse used on a whole series of different dated Morgan fakes with both attribution points, the exact same wrong-for-most-CCs shape/location and the “slash” across the eagle.

I also note the “un-filled O” feature, which I have seen on many of the latest CC Fakes. And then the slab…

The label font also catches your attention from across the room! The front barcode does not scan, but the reverse QR code does. And ironically, it reads the correct cert number but adds “cn” to it – an ironic reference to China?

And what about the cert? Conveniently it has no reference image or auction appearances to compare to but it is active.

Being notified of the issues, the seller pulled the listing pending “further review.” And running through my file folders, I came across this Canadian seller example from January.

Same cert number, but this one’s front barcode scanned. The font was also better, but the reverse QR yielded the same “cn” notation.

And again, the reverse was easy to spot!

That seller wasn’t so cooperative, and the listing was removed.

But, as always, there’s more!

Back through the archives, I came across this beaut. Again listed on the ‘Bay with the same PCGS cert number but a different generation holder. This one dates back to 2022.

And the reverse “features”:

And the “twist” (as always)! One can always find them cheaper on one of my favorite internet venues…

So, there appears to be no end to the bad coins out there or subject matter for this series. Stay vigilant; it is a jungle out there!

I appreciate any feedback or “likes” for these on the CoinWeek FB page, where they are also posted.

Best,

—Jack

MORE Articles on Counterfeit Coins by Jack D. Young

* * *

The post 1893-CC NOT PCGS Morgan Dollar Counterfeits – Jack Young’s Fun With Fakes appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.

After submitting my 50th exclusive CoinWeek article on counterfeits, CoinWeek sent me a note asking whether I’d considered doing one on the five or 10 most deceptive counterfeits I’d ever seen and what had tipped me off about them. I responded that I thought that was a great idea!

But writing more articles on all of the fakes appearing in many different selling venues got in the way, and now, after 65+ articles published on CoinWeek, I found myself revisiting the idea!

And I wrote it under my “Dark Corner” brand instead of my current “Fun with Fakes (FwF)” because every one of the following has had one or multiple examples certified and slabbed as genuine by a major third-party grading service (TPG) or two.

These are the ones that keep me up at night, and certainly are not “Fun”…

Brief History of this “Ring” of Counterfeiters

All of these and approximately 20 other examples can be traced back to one counterfeit “ring”.

The moneyman was in China; he purchased genuine examples, many from good dealers on eBay (the “Bay”), and then shipped them to the “den” in College Station, Texas, where various seller IDs sold the clones on the Bay.

I am not aware if anyone knows where the counterfeits were actually “coined”.

I had the opportunity to present my findings on these at the time to the U.S. Secret Service in a face-to-face meeting, compliments of my friend and anti-counterfeiting activist Beth Deisher back in 2018.

As a result of that meeting, I had follow-up phone meetings with both a Texas Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agent (who was aware of the location I had identified to the Secret Service) as well as a Treasury Department agent on the same subject.

Although I never heard what happened (I was told I would most likely not), the group disappeared, including all seller IDs on eBay, and I didn’t see any other new varieties from them again.

So, Here is My List

For each entry on this list, I will include the best images available–including full slab images if the example has been reported and the cert number dealt with–but I will redact the cert numbers of any still open.

The top five most deceptive counterfeits that I’ve encountered since we saw the first one back in the fall of 2015, in ascending order:

1. 1796 S-85 Large Cent
2. 1872-S Seated Half Dollar
3. 1798 S-158 Large Cent
4. 1836 Gobrecht Dollar
5. 1797 S-139 Large Cent

Detailed attribution information on each can be found at the links above.

#5) 1796 S-85 Large Cent

This one was identified as a fake by a friend and colleague from Early American Coppers (EAC) for reasons apparent when compared to a genuine example. My initial thought was it could have been tooled but would not dispute the evidence.

Interestingly, I found another example with matching major attribution marks but some apparently enhanced details, leading me to believe that the counterfeiters tooled the original dies.

Further research resulted in finding the original holed example, and we realized they were actually repairing damaged genuine coins to make the dies.

Subsequently, this one was certified by a major TPG, and images taken highlighted the apparent “star” in front of the face and doubled ONE CENT, leading to more and deeper research.

As a result, this example was proven to have been struck over a later date Large Cent cull (another of my initial suspicions); the main buyer had purchased cull Large Cents from a couple of Bay sellers during the time we were researching these.

The total population includes two TPG-certified specimens, a couple of raw examples, and the known damaged genuine source coin.

The main repeating attribution points are as follows:

This is the only example I have been able to document struck over another later date coin!

#4) 1872-S Liberty Seated Half Dollar

This was the “coin” that got me introduced to the Liberty Seated Collectors Club (LSCC) after finding a raw example listed on eBay by one of the known connected bad sellers.

Like the 1796 S-85, the 1872-S Half Dollar was initially “suspicious” due to the seller that was offering it, and after further review, the coin was not attributable to a genuine known variety for the date and mint.

I reached out to the LSCC, and a member responded that they had also found an example–this one in a TPG holder–and described what was wrong with them.

It actually took experts to figure it out, and as several articles have explained, the reverse was wrong for an 1872-S, although I found another in the same TPG’s holder as genuine.

More specifically, the obverse was reportedly from an 1872-P by mint state, the reverse with this unique (for an 1872-S) sized mintmark and location is from an 1875-S, and the reed count (yes, experts count edge reeds) was from an 1876!

I referred to it as a sort of “Frankenstein’s Monster” coin, with a couple of certified examples and a couple of raw ones but no documented genuine source coin, the only one we did not find for this group.

One image of this one is courtesy of my friends at NGC (who have not authenticated one), as well as in-hand images taken of the two slabbed examples.

And the main repeating major attribution points as follows:

#3) 1798 ”S-158” Large Cent

The 1798 ”S-158” Large Cent is one of my favorites, having handled several fake examples from different venues, and it is actually the variety that started me down this rabbit hole in late 2015. It was also the subject for my meeting and presentation to the United States Secret Service in Washington, D.C..

The first one reported was initially investigated as a new unknown variety of 1798 Large Cent, but several more were almost immediately found after its discovery, with all having matching attribution marks.

The following images include the “discovery coin” (found by someone else), the first one I discovered, and another counterfeit from the same group of known eBay bad sellers.

Interestingly, all three of the imaged examples were listed and sold by three different seller IDs, but all linked back to one listed “Company” and corresponding location in Texas.

The following image, courtesy of a friend and fellow EAC (Early American Coppers) member, was also used for one of my Facebook Group pages.

It shows marks and repaired areas common to all known examples, with a genuine coin on top.

Another certified example, this one initially considered a die state of S-158:

One of the interesting things to note is that we’ve documented nine of these, including the presumed genuine source example, all found in the late 2015 to early 2016 timeframe.

We have not seen another, which makes me wonder how many more are out there in folks’ collections.

The main repeating attribution points are in the image below.

#2) 1836 Gobrecht Dollar

The 1836 Gobrecht Dollar coming in at number two is a prolific TPG-certified counterfeit found in a major auction venue along with the ‘Bay. I’ve written a couple of articles on these.

As in many of the deceptive certified counterfeits, the genuine source example for the dies was damaged and repaired to make the false dies.

The hole in this example was small and mainly affected the “OF” on the reverse, requiring tooling in that spot after plugging the hole. The most obvious result of the tooling was the tail of the “F”.

Since reporting these, one turned up a few years ago in a dealer’s inventory, also TPG-certified. I understand it was returned to the third-party grading service that “authenticated” it.

The main repeating attribution points are as follows:

#1) 1797 S-139 Large Cent

So, here we are at NUMERO UNO, the 1797 “S-139” Large Cent, the one that a friend and big-time Early American Copper dealer said kept him up at night, and another was convinced only when I showed him the evidence.

Possibly only one certified, this example was authenticated by two of the top TPGs. The other certified example is likely the repaired genuine source coin. There were a couple of raw examples found and documented, as well.

The genuine example had a series of deep scratches that were mostly smoothed out on the coin before making these false dies, leaving an obvious streak on the doctored coin and remnants on the struck fakes, which serve as attribution points.

This one is so good that it was included as #18 for the variety in the Early Copper condition census for large cents (“CC”).

Supposed 1797 S-139 CC 18, net graded VF30

While researching this one, I asked a friend to do an image analysis. He “maps” a genuine coin in CAD/CAM and then maps the subject examples. His overlay includes two known bad examples; the “red” features are common only to the fakes.

These also match the “atts” that I had previously developed:

So there you have it, the top five deceptive counterfeits that keep me and plenty of others up at night!

Best, as Always,

—Jack

MORE Articles on Counterfeit Coins by Jack D. Young

* * *

The post From the Dark Corner: Top Five Counterfeits I Have Seen appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.

By CoinWeek Notes …..

A counterfeiter known by the Greek letter omega (Ω) that he, she, or they used to mark their work. Perhaps most famous for counterfeits of the 1907 Saint-Gaudens High Relief Double Eagle $20 gold coin and 1882 Indian Head Three-Dollar Gold, the Omega Counterfeiter also made fake Indian Head $10 Eagles dated 1910, 1913, and 1926, and additional Three-Dollar Gold pieces dated 1874 and 1878.

On the $3 coins, the Ω appears in the “R” of the word LIBERTY. On the 1907 High Relief Double Eagle, the “maker’s mark” is held in the claw of the reverse eagle.

F. Michael “Skip” Fazzari discovered the fakes after 50 1907 Saint-Gaudens High Relief, Roman Numeral Double Eagles of unknown origin began trading at the 1971 American Numismatic Association (ANA) Convention in Washington, D.C.. Fazarri examined the coins as an authenticator at ANACS starting in 1973 and determined that the coins were counterfeits. ANACS Director Charles Hoskins coined the term OMEGA based on his interpretation of the counterfeiter’s signature mark. ANACS tried to communicate with the counterfeiter in an open letter published in the May 1976 issue of The Numismatist, but apparently they received no reply.

The identity of the Omega Counterfeiter–whether a solitary individual, a state actor, or any number of possibilities in-between–remains unknown to this day.

NGC has written about Omega-made 1882 Three-Dollar Gold pieces and 1907 Saint counterfeits that the grading service has encountered.

* * *

The post The Mystery of the Omega Counterfeiter appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.

Many continue to prey on the less knowledgeable in the Hobby with multiple, often repeated, fake coin offerings, even after they are reported and removed. So is the case for this seller and this particularly “Bad coin”…

I found a counterfeit 1909-S Indian Head Cent [IHC] in a  fake PCGS slab being offered on eBay. The seller’s name is STEPLA_1908 and he/she Joined October 2023, showing 16 feedback. (Known bad eBay seller!)

Based on the Cert number 13845520 from the PCGS Cert Lookup page, the genuine coin was sold by Heritage on Aug 15, 2007 as Lot 7163

The “online cert” listing has no image but the Heritage site still has the archived Lot, so we can see images of this “loser” counterfeit [left] and compare it to the genuine example below [right].

Once the listing was removed, the seller tried 2 more times to post and sell this fake.

After having reporting seller STEPLA_1908 and having those listings removed, he appeared to have gone dormant for a short period. Then suddenly, a new seller account showed up, from the same listed location- Pottsville, Pennsylvania and trying to push the same Fake “Certified coin”; coincidence? I think not!

The saga continues. The coin magicly gets relisted, again. [see below] under a “different Seller account, Ingodsgr24.

And ammazingly, Bidding rose to $635.00,  until it was once again removed by eBay, saving another person from themselves.

This “new” seller apparently did some homework, as he created an image with a crude “Heritage Auctions” label on the reverse. 

One note though, the barcode on the fakes does scan correctly with my barcode scanning software, so these insert labels are better than most fakes we usually see. Again eBay removed the listing, so now what? ……Well, no disappointment here!

The Seller STEPLA_1908,  tried to offload the fake again, but this time, he cracked the coin out of the salb abd was trying to sell it raw! [See listing below]

Terrible images, terrible coin. Swing and a miss and then its gone again! 

Then the coin shows up once more, with the original fake sellers “alter ego” account of Ingodsgr24, and offers the same coin once again.

I’m thinking now they have listed so many different counterfeits and lost track of where they were- 1909-S VDB? And what about the $151.00 bid level? I suppose eBay saved another potential victim when they removed Ingodsgr24 seller account and his other 8 bad listings.

Both sellers [STEPLA_1908 and Ingodsgr24] have been reported to eBay with countless images of others alternately listed. I am curious if eBay will step up and get serious about this problem, or just let these bad actors continue to try to dupe unsuspecting and inexperienced buyers. So much for protecting your customers.

As I was finishing this piece and getting eBay to remove this seller’s junk,  STEPLA_1908 relisted 7 bad ”coins” including another of the bad 1909-S IHCs. And with these listings he added an even more hilarious note “proving” authenticity!” [SEE BELOW a Fraudulent “Invoice”] used to “prove” this listing is legit.

Instead of reporting this all over….. AGAIN!, I sent another note to eBay about the seller and his latest listings and asked if I should turn a blind eye and let them run the 2 days they were listed for.   I was pleased with the result: Ebay Posted that “STEPLA_1908 was NO longer a Registered User”

Trying to finish this article, I sent a copy to my friend and fellow counterfeit researcher Jack Riley, only to find he was working on a draft about counterfeit 1908-S IHCs. Talk about 2 people on the same page! And coincidentally both the 1908-S and 1909-S counterfeits share a common reverse.

And of course, it isn’t over until it’s over. Jack Riley found a 3^rd connected seller offering a 1909-S IHC as well; Pottsville Pennsylvania looks like the new hotbed for these scammers.

Be aware,  and use all the available resources at your disposal. And if you are not sure, Ask a person you can Trust who is knowledgable!

Best, Jack

Author Note:  While continuing “dumpster diving”, I came across the genuine 1909-S coin, in an authentic PCGS holder, with the real Cert Number.  It had recently been sold on eBay on September 3rd by Aercus Numismatics with decent images included.  And it sold for $1 995.00. !

This article was originally reviewed and discussed on FrostByte’s Sun morning Chit Chat. – Video Below

* * *

Want more stories like this? Sign up for the CoinWeek newsletter and never miss a rare discovery, auction highlight, or collector deep-dive.

The post Jack Young’s Fun with Fakes – Bad “Bay” sellers and a not-PCGS 1909-S Indian Cent appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.

Counterfeit coin – 1861 Type 2 Quarter Eagle

By Max Spiegel – Numismatic Guaranty Company (NGC) ……

Raised lumps of metal and lack of detail are red flags on this counterfeit coin – 1861 Type 2 Quarter Eagle.

NGC graders recently evaluated a submission of US gold pieces that included a counterfeit coin – 1861 Type 2 Quarter Eagle with several diagnostics frequently seen on a variety of dates. Although it is a low-quality fake, it is typical of many of the counterfeit gold coins seen by NGC on a regular basis.

The 1861 Quarter Eagle is a relatively common issue with a mintage of nearly 1.3 million pieces, divided between Type 1 (Old Reverse) and Type 2 (New Reverse). The Type 2 variety is the more plentiful of the two and is distinguished by a modified reverse design, which features smaller letters and arrowheads. As of October 2013, NGC had certified 1,232 examples of the 1861 Type 2, compared to just 110 pieces for the 1861 Type 1.

Counterfeit coins exist for every date and type of US gold coin so it is no surprise to see fakes of a fairly low value issue like the 1861 Type 2 Quarter Eagle. The most obvious issue with this forgery is the raised lumps of metal above the eagle on the reverse. Although these lumps are not always so prominent, they are repeatedly seen on fakes.

Another problem with this coin is the lack of detail on the obverse. A genuine example would usually have significantly sharper design elements, but counterfeiters often have trouble imitating this precision. There is also an unusual wire-like rim that protrudes from the perimeter of both sides.

It is important to look for these types of red flags on a coin. Many counterfeits share the same or similar flaws, so a knowledge of the most common diagnostics can allow you to quickly identify the majority of low or average-quality fakes.

The post Counterfeit Coin Detection – A Fake 1861 Type 2 US Gold Quarter Eagle appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.

So, I ended up with another of the counterfeit 1836 Gobrecht Dollars apparently from the Chinese counterfeit ring located in College Station, Texas, in 2015.This one was initially listed by an eBay seller and collector of Chinese coins—the same seller from whom I purchased the latest raw 1806 Draped Bust Half Cent counterfeit. The seller stated that the Gobrecht Dollar came from the Netherlands; curiously, my example came from China but was also routed through the Netherlands—coincidence???

A friend who owned the genuine repaired example for these fakes notified me of the listing, and we both informed the seller it was bad and a match for the others, including my “certified” counterfeit example.

The seller then agreed to accept a MUCH lower offer from my friend—a red flag, IMHO, as well as his “NO RETURN See Description” noted in the listing title.

And a note: I did notify my contact at NGC about this one. They didn’t slab it, but to me, identifying the variety and labeling it as “altered surfaces” and NOT “counterfeit” does not tell the whole story of this one! And I have seen other sellers who apparently feel empowered that it does not say “not genuine” to list them for sale as if they are. In this case, the seller did note in the description “not 100% sure for the authenticity.” He also noted the buyer “will score big” if able to get it into a TPG holder.

So, my friend completed the purchase and asked if I would like to see it in hand to evaluate and compare to mine when received, and I was excited to have the opportunity!

As a point of reference, I add an image of my example as received back in 2017 and the main attribution points of these counterfeits.

The significance of the “blunted F” in OF results from the genuine source coin’s hole and subsequent repair that required the back of the “F” to be re-engraved and then noticeably different from a genuine undamaged example!

And results for mine from testing at a metrological testing facility as follows; I added today’s results from an in-hand review of this second one below:

And the pair of images of the subject example as follows:

Under a microscope, I took a number of comparison reference images to my example. The following image I nicknamed “crop circles” may have led to the TPG’s description of “altered surfaces”!

And a few comparison images: my first example on the left, the subject example on the right. The surfaces of this second example certainly appear “messed with,” possibly in an attempt to reduce some of the major common markers, but there are still plenty to see!

Several matching marks highlighted here from the hole repair of the genuine source example!

I then took this example for review to ICG (Independent Coin Graders); located in Tampa, I always schedule a visit when visiting family down there. I love to talk counterfeits with “Skip” Fazzari and the team and have my show examples slabbed in their yellow-labeled “educational” holders.

Just a note: ICG is the only TPG to offer the service of attributing and slabbing counterfeit coins.

I had shown images of the surfaces of this one to others in one of my Facebook groups, and the consensus was fingerprints. Skip looks at these under a microscope, and he responded, “Not a fingerprint, but ‘Looks like re-working on the die.’” So, maybe a new “fingerprint” of the next versions we see of these…

And the error on the label makes it even more valuable!

Again, I thank all of my friends and Dark Side enthusiasts for their help and support, including CoinWeek!

Best as always, Jack

The post Jack Young’s Fun with Fakes- Another 1836 Gobrecht Dollar appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.

This installment’s star is a counterfeit 1916-D Mercury Dime in a fake PCGS slab and was found in a review of a couple of bad, apparently linked eBay sellers.

The certification number on the label was active on the PCGS website. While there is no TrueView image available, the site does provide a listing of past auction appearances.

The obverse of this “1916-D Mercury Dime” is a little scary, as it appears that the counterfeiters tried to make it look like a genuine example, even scratching it and spot-toning it—but it’s not a match!

And a comment from a friend on the “D” of this one:

So, a bad coin and holder. I first notified the seller (huffordcabinetco) … and then reported the listing to eBay. The eBay item number was 157035606409

After confirming with the Bay that the coin was legitimate, I shared the listing on my Facebook page, the PCGS forum, and CoinTalk, urging others to report it. Despite numerous reports, the listing remained active, highlighting, in my opinion, eBay’s decline and the growing audacity of unscrupulous sellers.

Yeah, I would call it “artificial” intelligence…

I wasn’t done. I tried to bring more folks in. I sent a note to the President of the Anti-Counterfeiting Education Foundation, but it seems even they lack the influence to hold eBay accountable. Their response merely acknowledged that “eBay has been awful lately.” Well said, but frustratingly insufficient.

And then an interesting twist—a search through more bad listings on the internet surfaced this fake Morgan Dollar. Listed as a 1893-CC and CAC, it sports a fake PCGS label and added CAC bean, possibly photoshopped.

Interestingly, the label’s barcode is the same as the 1916-D Mercury Dime that is the subject of this article and takes one to the same 1893-S PCGS Morgan Dollar.

The seller of the 1893-CC ended his listing after he received my message that his coin was counterfeit. But the eBay allowed the fake 1916-D Mercury Dime to sell.

Interestingly, after all the drama and online posts about this coin, three bidders retracted their bids.

So, the Fun (w/Fakes) seemingly never ends! Especially since eBay continues to adequately police their auctions and ignores reports of counterfeits. This may make your blood boil, but the fake 1916-D sold for $8,114. I hope the winner reads this before the return window closes!

* * *

The post Jack Young’s Fun with Fakes- 1916-D Counterfeit in a Counterfeit PCGS Slab appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.

The 1836 Gobrecht Dollar is a favorite counterfeit of mine. I have written one article published in the Liberty Seated Collectors Club’s (LSCC) Gobrecht Journal and two articles on this deceptive fake for CoinWeek. I also included it in my Top 5 Counterfeit article here, as well as in my recent Live Coin Q & A podcast on the same subject (below).

The day after the podcast aired, I received a message from a friend attending the Georgia Numismatic Association’s (GNA) Coin Show who had seen a raw example in a dealer’s inventory listed for $12.5K. This example appears to be a dead ringer for mine, with many (red) circled common marks. The black-circled mark is a good identifier for this example.

Not mentioning the dealer’s name, I did see he is listed as having a table at the 2025 Central States Convention in Chicago, so I had planned to see this one “in-hand” and take some pictures up close.

The back story of this counterfeit is interesting. My friend actually owned the genuine repaired source coin and contacted me after seeing my initial article on them. He is drawn to Gobrechts and, like me, is on a budget, so the best examples are typically out of reach. Nevertheless, this one fit the bill for him initially. But he’s always on the lookout for another and spotted one at a coin show back in 2021. Comparing it to his example and images from my article, he explained to the dealer that it was one of the bad ones. He was invited to the dealer’s shop after the show where they could perform a better review in that setting.

He shared the following cool images, having the source example next to a clone at the same time!

As in images from my articles, you can clearly see the discolored/repaired area above the head of his NGC-certified example. Interestingly, you can also see the dark identifier mark on the subject example as I showed to start this article.

The NGC certification label states: “FINE DETAILS PLUGGED”.

Here is a reverse image comparison. Notice another unique marker on the subject example, a large reverse scratch:

And a combination image of the subject example:

I am calling both the first set of images from one dealer and the second from another THE subject example. They not only share the common details of the struck clone counterfeits but they also have the two unique identifiers, as noted.

Examining the Counterfeit Gobrecht at Central States

Back to the “back story”, the dealer in the 2021 discussion stated that he intended to get his money back from the dealer he purchased it from, roughly $10K.

So, with both dealers listed at tables at this year’s Central States, a show I’ve always planned to attend for the past three years or so, I decided to wait for that opportunity. I wanted to see both dealer’s there, but especially the one likely to currently own it. But going to his table on the first day was disappointing, as he just had coin boxes in his display cases and nothing to actually view.

Then I went to the dealer who reportedly had it in 2021. When he was free to talk I showed him my example, which currently is in a TPG holder as genuine.

My example is a virtual marked twin for the subject. But after studying it a bit, this dealer stated he had never seen an example with so many marks.

Walking past the other dealer’s table resulted in nothing, as he still had nothing on display, so the first day ended without spotting the counterfeit. I decided I would go to his table the next morning and if he still had nothing displayed, I would ask about the coin.

Back to the dealer in the morning and nothing new with his case, so I introduced myself and said I understood he may have an 1836 Gobrecht. He said he did and dug it out of a box. Listed for $12.5K, it is the same coin my friend saw in Georgia a couple of weeks ago. In hand, I asked if I could take some images of it for better viewing and he said OK. Taking my pictures, I thanked him and went to an open area to review the images, my example, and images from my CoinWeek article all together.

No mistaking it, the dealer’s coin was one of the counterfeit clone Gobrechts. Now how to tell him…

I created the collage of the major counterfeit attribution marks and his coin for this article:

I loaded my article on my phone and went back to his table waiting for it to be clear of any customers. I then told him I didn’t want to be a pain, but wondered if anyone had ever suggested the Gobrecht is counterfeit. He said no, “especially with where it came from.” I then showed him the images I took, my coin, and the clear repeating attribution marks of the fakes. He then stated who he bought it from and that he knew from whom that dealer had purchased it.

We shook hands and he put the coin away as I left.

So, these deceptive counterfeits keep surfacing, sometimes where you may least expect them. They are the gift that just keeps on giving.

I sent an email to the first dealer from 2021 on this one, but no response so far – stay tuned!

Best, as Always,

—Jack

MORE Articles on Counterfeit Coins by Jack D. Young

* * *

The post From the Dark Corner: Counterfeit 1836 “Gobrecht Dollars” All Over Again appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.

The “Supernote” was a counterfeit $100 Federal Reserve Note so undetectable that it threatened to destroy the global economy. Retired United States Secret Service Special Agent Jim Davidson traced its distribution as it traveled along international terrorist routes.

In his new book Supernote (2025), Davidson shares the tale as he recounts his travels from the Iguazu jungle in Argentina and Paraguay to casinos in Moscow, safe-houses in Beirut, and back alleys in Phnom Penh. Along the way, he unraveled the distribution routes of terrorist organizations including Hezbollah, the PLO, and the IRA – all of which were supporting their lethal operations with the Supernote.

During his lengthy career, Davidson protected six Presidents of the United States, as well as kings, queens, prime ministers, foreign presidents, dictators and other heads of state and governments from around the world. He has supervised multiple Secret Service headquarters investigative divisions including the Counterfeit, Fraud, and Forgery Divisions. Davidson represented the Secret Service on the William Bennett Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Task Force, where he went undercover and developed the largest drug-front investigation in the history of the DEA Mid-Atlantic Region.

About the Author

Besides writing the book Supernote, Jim Davidson currently owns and operates Davidson Global Security, a private investigative and executive protection company. He specializes in high-end fraudulent investment money recoveries worldwide. His company has recovered tens of millions of dollars for its clients and orchestrated the arrest and prosecution of the criminals. He met his wife Mary in the Secret Service when they were assigned as partners investigating counterfeit money cases in Los Angeles.

* * *

The post New Book Tells Story of Multi-Year Investigation Into “Supernote” Counterfeit Ring appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.

Is it me, or is eBay getting worse for bad listings and counterfeits lately? And their “reporting” feature seems to just be a façade.

I use eBay as a counterfeit research tool and post in several of the Facebook Groups I participate in. Recently I posted an obvious bad fake in a fake “PCGS” slab and asked folk to report it as such to eBay through their standard process–which, ironically, is noted on a listing with a question mark (?) near the bottom right.

I had a huge response, with NO ONE getting a favorable return. It seems that, no matter what, eBay’s answer was “We looked into your report and didn’t find the listing to be in violation of our policy.” These responses are noted as being from either their “AI” (I’ll call them “BayBots”) or an unknown “customer service agent”. A real shame, as eBay did have a method for a select group to directly report bad listings, and I can confirm MANY listings were removed daily. But that channel has apparently dried up.

Now on to the current state of the ‘Bay. The following is an image of listings active this morning through my standard search for “1881-CC Morgan Dollars”. I chose this in the past due to the proliferation of bad counterfeits with that date and mintmark:

A brief description of what is shown here:

Number one is a bad Chinese counterfeit in a fake PCGS holder; it clearly doesn’t match the genuine example shown on the PCGS site and uses the latest scam, a GreatCollections sticker from an actual auction. I reported this one and eBay said there were no violations.

In this example, the counterfeit’s QR code takes one to the PCGS CN (China) site for the cert, and the GreatCollections QR code takes one to their auction for the genuine example.

Numbers two and three are also examples shown shipping from China. These use stock images of genuine coins to sell their fakes.

I have direct experience with these type of listings, having purchased a large cent with images of a genuine example in the listing only to receive a common current CN counterfeit. The seller offered a return with shipping that cost more than what I paid for the “coin”.

Number four is another bad CN counterfeit Morgan Dollar in a fake PCGS holder. I have written articles and appeared on podcasts discussing these as they proliferate on eBay and other sites.

This particular example and listing was reported several times, only for eBay to repeatedly say that it’s OK. The listing finally ended only to have the seller re-list it unchecked for another round.

The genuine PCGS coin is shown on their cert site with an image that this one isn’t even close to, but it’s still active for sale on eBay.

Numbers five and six are more listings from a CN seller that use genuine stock images of someone else’s coin/listing. I personally would pick #6 to purchase because it is four cents cheaper…

And number seven! This seller has a whole boatload of fakes labeled as “Commemorative Coins”. Give me a break, eBay!

The description he used for his “1885-CC”:

I reported the listing and the seller multiple times but apparently the ‘Bay approves of both.

So we move on to number eight, the real “star” of this group. Another of the “Morgan” fakes in a counterfeit PCGS holder, this one is currently posted on my personal Facebook page and is also being mass reported by my friends.

So far, we’ve all been notified that the listing is A-OK, as this response to my report indicates.

We’ll see how many rejections we can receive as a group on this one.

All of this leads one to wonder if eBay has changed its “Coin Policy” without formally stating it, as all of these types of listings were previously considered violations. Good for the sellers, bad for the buyers? And what effect does it have on the coin collecting hobby at this time? I suppose one can only speculate.

One thing that is not speculation, however, is that listings could once be reported and removed. The following are images from one day’s effort.

So, is this a sign of the times for eBay or did someone just fall asleep at the wheel? We’ll continue to watch and report more “fun with fakes” as we see them!

Best as always from the Dark Side Group and Fun with Fakes,

—Jack

Beyond eBay Counterfeits – Other Articles on Fake Coins by Jack D. Young

* * *

The post Counterfeits Abound and eBay Doesn’t Care: Jack Young’s Fun With Fakes appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.