1922 Peace Dollar error?

[dwhe...@ipns.com]

Took photos of this recently, and had to look again.

1922 Peace Dollar.

Looks like a lot of cuds and rim cracks.

Photos: http://community.webshots.com/album/577322307BLUtcb

Daniel B. Wheeler

[Peter]

Couterfeit?

[dwhe...@ipns.com]

Don't know. Doubt it. Why counterfeit a cheap Peace dollar issue? Same
diameter and approximate weight of actual Peace Dollar.

Daniel B. Wheeler

[Mr. Jaggers]

Why counterfeit a 1944 nickel? But there are a ton of them out there (or
were at one time), all lacking the big P mintmark on the reverse.

James de Faux-Monnayeur

[dwhe...@ipns.com]

On Apr 12, 7:43 pm, "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote:
[snip]

>
> > Don't know. Doubt it. Why counterfeit a cheap Peace dollar issue? Same
> > diameter and approximate weight of actual Peace Dollar.
>
> > Daniel B. Wheeler
>
> Why counterfeit a 1944 nickel? But there are a ton of them out there (or
> were at one time), all lacking the big P mintmark on the reverse.
>
> James de Faux-Monnayeur

Indeed! I haven't actually weighed them, though.

Better Faux than foe, don't you think?

Doesn't answer the question, though. Why try to counterfeit a cheap
Peace dollar? I've seen a few: I don't know any serious collector who
hasn't. But they look, well, counterfeit. Poor details. This has
pretty good details, even though a portion of them were raised quite a
bit.

The photos don't show it, but there are lots of sharp edges on this
thing, especially on the edge. And why that disappearing Y in LIBERTY?
Opposite the big cud on the other side?

Daniel B. Wheeler

[Peter]

I am interested in your remark that the weight is about right. The
pictures also seem to show weak details in some parts. If you are
able to put it along side another Peace dollar, is it dimensionally
correct with the correct diameter and thickness (i.e., does it have
the same weight and specific gravity?).

In checking specific gravity by comparing size and weight with a
genuine coin, you might remove all the loose bits of glue or
extraneous material that seem to be clinging to the coin in the
pictures.

The quality of the details as it's visible from the pictures does not
seem like a strong point in against it being counterfeit. It may look
better in your hand.

[dwhe...@ipns.com]

Just added more photos comparing the 1922 with a common-date 1923 for
side-by-side comparison to the same site as above. Both coins have the
same diameter. But not the same thickness. I'm not sure whether this
is due to wear, the apparent cuds on the 1922, or what. The 1922
appears slightly thicker. When I try to hold them together to take the
rim photos, the coins had enough space between them to allow light to
pass through completely.

Peter has suggested there is glue or other extraneous material on the
1922. My fingernail chips before any portion of the material is
removed on the rim. I next used acetone to clean the surfaces. Other
than minor soil, nothing came off the coin.

Daniel B. Wheeler

[Peter]

On Apr 14, 2:01 pm, dwhee...@ipns.com wrote:

> Just added more photos comparing the 1922 with a common-date 1923 for
> side-by-side comparison to the same site as above. Both coins have the
> same diameter. But not  the same thickness.

If they have the same diameter and the same weight, but a different
thickness it means they do not have the same specific gravity and thus
there is some difference in composition.

> I'm not sure whether this
> is due to wear, the apparent cuds on the 1922, or what. The 1922
> appears slightly thicker. When I try to hold them together to take the
> rim photos, the coins had enough space between them to allow light to
> pass through completely.

If the 1922 is thicker then it has the lower specific gravity than the
1923 and this might mean a lower percentage of silver. Even so, the
extraneous material that is included is a point to consider. If that
happened as you suggested as an error, then it may have caused the
coin to seem thicker, but I can understand how it might have happened
unless the original flan was damaged and the gunk was layered within
it (I know people make jokes about the quality of government work, but
it seems unlikely that it made it through any inspection at the mint).

As far as seeing light between the coins, normally you should not.
One coin might be bent or it simply might be that the gunk protrudes a
little from the surface. I simply can't decide from the pictures.

> Peter has suggested there is glue or other extraneous material on the
> 1922. My fingernail chips before any portion of the material is
> removed on the rim. I next used acetone to clean the surfaces. Other
> than minor soil, nothing came off the coin.

Noted; sorry to be the cause of extra work.

> Daniel B. Wheeler- Hide quoted text -
>

I still would wonder if it is counterfeit; if it is an error it looks
like a multi-aspect error.

[dwhe...@ipns.com]

On Apr 14, 3:35 pm, Peter <w2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 2:01 pm, dwhee...@ipns.com wrote:
>
> > Just added more photos comparing the 1922 with a common-date 1923 for
> > side-by-side comparison to the same site as above. Both coins have the
> > same diameter. But not the same thickness.
>
> If they have the same diameter and the same weight, but a different
> thickness it means they do not have the same specific gravity and thus
> there is some difference in composition.
>

For a coin with thicker rims around the circumference, I'd agree. But
if the coin was merely thicker all the way around it shouldn't have
visible light between the coins: they should mesh.

> > I'm not sure whether this
> > is due to wear, the apparent cuds on the 1922, or what. The 1922
> > appears slightly thicker. When I try to hold them together to take the
> > rim photos, the coins had enough space between them to allow light to
> > pass through completely.
>
> If the 1922 is thicker then it has the lower specific gravity than the
> 1923 and this might mean a lower percentage of silver. Even so, the
> extraneous material that is included is a point to consider. If that
> happened as you suggested as an error, then it may have caused the
> coin to seem thicker, but I can understand how it might have happened
> unless the original flan was damaged and the gunk was layered within
> it (I know people make jokes about the quality of government work, but
> it seems unlikely that it made it through any inspection at the mint).
>
> As far as seeing light between the coins, normally you should not.

Agreed.

> One coin might be bent or it simply might be that the gunk protrudes a
> little from the surface. I simply can't decide from the pictures.

If so, the edge photos should show it. I see either coin being bent.

>
> > Peter has suggested there is glue or other extraneous material on the
> > 1922. My fingernail chips before any portion of the material is
> > removed on the rim. I next used acetone to clean the surfaces. Other
> > than minor soil, nothing came off the coin.
>
> Noted; sorry to be the cause of extra work.
>

Don't apologize! It's a good idea. It might have been there, and
needed to be tested for. Lack of response to acetone still doesn't
rule out some form of clear acrylic or epoxy.

> I still would wonder if it is counterfeit; if it is an error it looks
> like a multi-aspect error.

Was kind of hoping a few others here would comment. But thanks for
commenting, Peter.

Daniel B. Wheler