1884 Indian Head- What's missing?

[Petespockets55]

Found this 1884 Indian head in a mixed Lincoln wheat roll. At first glance it looked in ok shape, not great but ok. Something looked off about the devices and rim. Anyone care to pose a guess what's "off" on this one?

Not hard to miss on others as well if they are at least a "Good" grade.

1884 Indian Head LINK

Thanks for looking and adding comments.

[GrumpyEd]

Denticles? But I think it's from wear.

[Petespockets55]

Too much definition around the rim for the denticles to be missing all definition of the spaces between them. Only a few short bumps around the date.
The outline of the devices look fairly sharp (excluding the bust) but the interior details are lacking. The wreath and shield on the reverse especially.

These were some of the traits that have been brought up on other forums as things to look out for with fakes.
It doesn't have a pitted or grainy surface in the fields like I might expect to see but it is missing the missing denticles and the interior details. I'm thinking this might be a mold instead of a sand cast since there isn't any pitting.

(And thanks on the spelling because that is how I usually spell them but I recently saw them spelled differently and went with that one.)

[GrumpyEd]

Well if it a contemporary fake, to me that makes it pretty neat.

I'm not sure if the denticles alone guarantee it is. I can't put my finger on it but in general it looks slightly off, maybe the bust looks more like a man and less lady-like but I can't say for sure.

[makecents]

Not sure Cliff. I not a pro with the IHC but have messed with them some and this does not seem that out of the norm. I'm not sure what you would gain either for what they sell for in "good" condition. I could be wrong but here are a couple I found in a few minutes on the bay. LINK (https://www.ebay.com/itm/1884-1C-Ind...m18:rk:23:pf:0)
LINK (https://www.ebay.com/itm/1884-Indian...n/323705231602)

[GrumpyEd]

I'm not up to telling if it's wear or fake.

I'm not sure what you would gain either for what they sell for in "good" condition.

If it's fake, it wouldn't be made for selling on ebay, it would have been contemporary, made when IHCs were in use then circulated.

I couldn't explain how that was worthwhile back then, not sure if the metal value alone and effort would be much less than a cent, maybe they melt a large cent and make a few small cents? Or use junk cheaper metal? But I have seen them for sale so they did exist.

One thing to do is weigh it. and see if's similar weight to other IHCs.

[makecents]

Yes sir. I'm familiar with contemporary counterfeit coins where I dealt with Morgans for a few years, some are more collectable than the U.S. mint coins. The eBay links were more to show similar wear on a similar grade coin as Cliff's but I did not think about them being contemporary, I just would not understand in general why this would happen, not saying it couldn't or didn't.

[Petespockets55]

Thanks for the comments and replies. I'm not real up on them either. It just looked off to me also and not enough detail was evident for the look of the denticles.

I just thought more of the space between the denticles would be more defined. Especially since the area between them is supposed to be even with the field. Could the dies not be hubbed as deeply into the die stock to cause the space between the denticles to wear like this one?

As far as expending so much effort back then, since there are about 150 cents to a pound, it would be a way for someone back then to turn +- 3o cents worth of copper into $1.50 without much chance of getting prosecuted. Similar to what caused the popularity of Civil War Tokens.

It would kind of be an indicator of economic hard times for people in general to attempt it. Not sure of the economy in 1884.
Thanks again guys.

[GrumpyEd]

I think it's more likely odd wear but I don't know how to tell other than weight.

They do exist but most of the one's I've seen dealers selling were not like this, they were slightly crude and probably cast.
Maybe an IHC expert would know if there are many die struck fakes from the period.

It does make us wonder, like those Henning nickels, how was it worth the effort.

I'm familiar with contemporary counterfeit coins where I dealt with Morgans for a few years, some are more collectable than the U.S. mint coins.

If you are into dollars, I think the common fakes like micro Os were done because at the time an ounce of silver was worth less than $1, is that the reason?

[makecents]

I think it's more likely odd wear but I don't know how to tell other than weight.

They do exist but most of the one's I've seen dealers selling were not like this, they were slightly crude and probably cast.
Maybe an IHC expert would know if there are many die struck fakes from the period.

It does make us wonder, like those Henning nickels, how was it worth the effort.



If you are into dollars, I think the common fakes like micro Os were done because at the time an ounce of silver was worth less than $1, is that the reason?

here is a link to the current list of Morgan contemporary counterfeit coins. http://ec2-13-58-222-16.us-east-2.co...Made_Varieties There were several different years and mints, some found within the last couple of years. As for all of the reasons, I do not know. You are probably much more knowledgeable than I am on this. Here was another link that was on vamworld that looked like a good read. Check out the introduction https://books.google.com/books?id=AM...page&q&f=false

[Petespockets55]

I don't think many fakes we're struck back then. Most I have read about were cast in sand and poured. The sand causes uneven little dimples in the surface. Since this one is smooth and not pockmarked is why I wondered about a mold. I think a mold could be made by casting and working to eliminate any dimples.
I do have contemporary counterfeit Civil War Tokens that used a mold. The two sides didn't line up and were offset. You can see where the obv. stuck out past the rev.
I'll have to find those and add images.
Thanks again for walking me through with your thoughts.

[jfines69]

To me it looks fake... The reason for no denticles would be the rims they are more than twice the width and cover where the denticles should... Also the wear patterns do not look correct... The wear is even on both sides... Normally wear patterns flow in different directions yours is just evenly flat on both sides... Just my thoughts!!!

[Petespockets55]

Thanks John. Looks real interesting.
I'll have to look that one up on my PC screen so I can read the itty bitty letters that appear on my phone.

[uglycent]

I think it is a weak strike and wear, especially because of the date. They were well used for 50 years. I have seen a lot of worn out Indians and they all wear different. Sometime the rims are gone sometimes the inner devices are worn with decent rims. Also someone might have rubbed the rims on a hard surface the move the metal inwards. All kinds of fun with Indian cents.

[GrumpyEd]

I think it is a weak strike and wear, especially because of the date. They were well used for 50 years. I have seen a lot of worn out Indians and they all wear different. Sometime the rims are gone sometimes the inner devices are worn with decent rims. Also someone might have rubbed the rims on a hard surface the move the metal inwards. All kinds of fun with Indian cents.

I had a similar thought about the wide rim, maybe it was lightly tapped then circulated another 50 years.

I wonder if the diameter is slightly big like can it easily fit into a cent folder or is it slightly bigger in diameter?