{"id":37125,"date":"2025-12-12T00:37:53","date_gmt":"2025-12-12T00:37:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/gpnewswire.com\/news\/from-the-dark-corner-top-five-counterfeits-i-have-seen\/"},"modified":"2025-12-12T00:37:53","modified_gmt":"2025-12-12T00:37:53","slug":"from-the-dark-corner-top-five-counterfeits-i-have-seen","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gpnewswire.com\/news\/from-the-dark-corner-top-five-counterfeits-i-have-seen\/","title":{"rendered":"From the Dark Corner: Top Five Counterfeits I Have Seen"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Jack D. Young<\/strong>, Early American Coppers (EAC)<\/strong>, and the Dark Side Group<\/strong> \u2026\u2026 Updated Dec 11, 2025<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

\"Jack
Jack Young at the 2018 Whitman Expo.<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

After submitting my 50th exclusive CoinWeek article on counterfeits, CoinWeek sent me a note asking whether I\u2019d considered doing one on the five or 10 most deceptive counterfeits I\u2019d ever seen and what had tipped me off about them. I responded that I thought that was a great idea!<\/p>\n

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<\/strong>, I found myself revisiting the idea!<\/p>\n

And I wrote it under my \u201cDark Corner<\/strong>\u201d brand instead of my current \u201cFun with Fakes (FwF)<\/strong>\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

These are the ones that keep me up at night, and certainly are not \u201cFun\u201d\u2026<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Brief History of this \u201cRing\u201d of Counterfeiters<\/h3>\n

All of these and approximately 20 other examples can be traced back to one counterfeit \u201cring\u201d.<\/p>\n

The moneyman was in China<\/strong>; he purchased genuine examples, many from good dealers on eBay<\/strong> (the \u201cBay\u201d), and then shipped them to the \u201cden\u201d in College Station<\/strong>, Texas<\/strong>, where various seller IDs sold the clones on the Bay.<\/p>\n

I am not aware if anyone knows where the counterfeits were actually \u201ccoined\u201d.<\/span><\/h4>\n

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

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

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\u2019t see any other new varieties from them again.<\/p>\n

So, Here is My List<\/h3>\n

For each entry on this list, I will include the best images available\u2013including full slab images if the example has been reported and the cert number<\/a> <\/span>dealt with\u2013but I will redact the cert numbers of any still open.<\/p>\n

The top five most deceptive counterfeits<\/strong> that I\u2019ve encountered since we saw the first one back in the fall of 2015, in ascending order:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. 1796 S-85 Large Cent<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n
  2. 1872-S Seated Half Dollar<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n
  3. 1798 S-158 Large Cent<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n
  4. 1836 Gobrecht Dollar<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n
  5. 1797 S-139 Large Cent<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Detailed attribution information on each can be found at the links above.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

    #5) 1796 S-85 Large Cent<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

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

    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.<\/p>\n

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

    Subsequently, this one was certified by a major TPG, and images taken highlighted the apparent \u201cstar\u201d in front of the face and doubled ONE CENT, leading to more and deeper research.<\/p>\n

    \"Combination
    Combination image of the subject example 1796 Liberty Cap Cent.<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
    \"Previous
    Previous TruView. Image: PCGS.<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    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.<\/p>\n

    \"CAD
    CAD image showing the understuck outline of a later date large cent host<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    The total population includes two TPG-certified specimens, a couple of raw examples, and the known damaged genuine source coin.<\/p>\n

    \"Shown
    Shown in the slab with my prototype \u201cDark Side\u201d bean.<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    The main repeating attribution points are as follows:<\/p>\n

    \"Attribution<\/p>\n

    This is the only example I have been able to document struck over another later date coin!<\/p>\n

    #4) 1872-S Liberty Seated Half Dollar<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

    This was the \u201ccoin\u201d that got me introduced to the Liberty Seated Collectors Club (LSCC)<\/strong> after finding a raw example listed on eBay by one of the known connected bad sellers.<\/p>\n

    Like the 1796 S-85, the 1872-S Half Dollar was initially \u201csuspicious\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

    I reached out to the LSCC, and a member responded that they had also found an example\u2013this one in a TPG holder\u2013and described what was wrong with them.<\/p>\n

    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\u2019s holder as genuine.<\/p>\n

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

    I referred to it as a sort of \u201cFrankenstein\u2019s Monster\u201d coin<\/strong>, 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.<\/p>\n

    One image of this one is courtesy of my friends at NGC<\/strong> (who have not authenticated one<\/em>), as well as in-hand images taken of the two slabbed examples.<\/p>\n

    \"Combination
    Combination image of the subject example Courtesy NGC<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
    \"Two
    Two PCGS-certified examples. Image: Jack Young.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    And the main repeating major attribution points as follows:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    \"1872-S<\/p>\n

    #3) 1798 \u201dS-158\u201d Large Cent<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

    The 1798 \u201dS-158\u201d Large Cent<\/strong> 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<\/a><\/strong><\/span> in Washington, D.C.<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

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

    The following images include the \u201cdiscovery coin\u201d (found by someone else), the first one I discovered, and another counterfeit from the same group of known eBay<\/strong> bad sellers.<\/p>\n

    \"Jack
    \u201cDiscovery coin\u201d, my 1st example, and a third different TPG certified example.<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    Interestingly, all three of the imaged examples were listed and sold by three different seller IDs, but all linked back to one listed \u201cCompany\u201d and corresponding location in Texas<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

    The following image, courtesy of a friend and fellow EAC (Early American Coppers)<\/a><\/strong><\/span> member, was also used for one of my Facebook<\/strong> Group pages.<\/p>\n

    \"Image
    Image courtesy Tom Deck\/ EAC<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    It shows marks and repaired areas common to all known examples, with a genuine coin on top.<\/p>\n

    \"\u201cBust
    \u201cBust crater\u201d common to all of the counterfeits.<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    Another certified example, this one initially considered a die state of S-158:<\/p>\n

    \"1798
    1798 Counterfeit S-158 Variety Plus Image.<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    One of the interesting things to note is that we\u2019ve documented nine of these, including the presumed genuine source example, all found in the late 2015 to early 2016 timeframe.<\/p>\n

    We have not seen another, which makes me wonder how many more are out there in folks\u2019 collections.<\/p>\n

    The main repeating attribution points are in the image below.<\/span><\/h4>\n

    \"1798<\/p>\n

    #2) 1836 Gobrecht Dollar<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

    The 1836 Gobrecht Dollar<\/strong> coming in at number two is a prolific TPG-certified counterfeit found in a major auction venue along with the \u2018Bay. I\u2019ve written a couple of articles on these.<\/p>\n

    \"\u201cAll
    \u201cAll in the Family\u201d! Holed source example on the top right.<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    As in many of the deceptive certified counterfeits, the genuine source example for the dies was damaged and repaired to make the false dies.<\/p>\n

    The hole in this example was small and mainly affected the \u201cOF\u201d on the reverse, requiring tooling in that spot after plugging the hole. The most obvious result of the tooling was the tail of the \u201cF\u201d.<\/p>\n

    \"Repaired
    Repaired source example, genuine \u201cOF,\u201d struck counterfeit from a major auction house.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
    \"Last
    The last certified example is documented, Chinese example is also certified.<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    Since reporting these, one turned up a few years ago in a dealer\u2019s inventory, also TPG-certified. I understand it was returned to the third-party grading service that \u201cauthenticated\u201d it.<\/p>\n

    The main repeating attribution points are as follows:<\/span><\/h4>\n
    \"Key
    Key Attribution Points for the 1836 Gobrecht Dollar.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    #1) 1797 S-139 Large Cent<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

    So, here we are at NUMERO UNO, the 1797 \u201cS-139\u201d Large Cent<\/strong>, 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.<\/p>\n

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

    \"1797
    1797 Shelton-139 Draped Bust Cent Counterfeit.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    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.<\/p>\n

    This one is so good that it was included as #18 for the variety in the Early Copper condition census for large cents (\u201cCC\u201d).<\/span><\/h3>\n
    \"1797
    1797 Shelton 139 Draped Bust Cent Counterfeit<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    Supposed 1797 S-139 CC 18, net graded VF30<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \"1797
    1797 Draped Bust Cent Counterfeit.<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    While researching this one, I asked a friend to do an image analysis. He \u201cmaps\u201d a genuine coin in CAD\/CAM and then maps the subject examples. His overlay includes two known bad examples; the \u201cred\u201d features are common only to the fakes.<\/p>\n

    \"A
    A friend\u2019s Cad overlays highlighting attribution points for the counterfeits.<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    These also match the \u201catts\u201d that I had previously developed:<\/p>\n

    \"Counterfeit<\/p>\n

    So there you have it, the top five deceptive counterfeits that keep me and plenty of others up at night!<\/p>\n

    Best, as Always,<\/p>\n

    \u2014Jack<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n

    MORE Articles on Counterfeit Coins by Jack D. Young<\/strong><\/a><\/h2>\n

    * * *<\/p>\n

    The post From the Dark Corner: Top Five Counterfeits I Have Seen<\/a> appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors<\/a>.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    By Jack D. Young, Early American Coppers (EAC), and the Dark Side Group \u2026\u2026 Updated Dec 11, 2025 Jack Young at the 2018 Whitman Expo. After submitting my 50th exclusive CoinWeek article on counterfeits, CoinWeek sent me a note asking whether I\u2019d considered doing one on the five or 10 most deceptive counterfeits I\u2019d ever […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[39],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-37125","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-finance"],"publishpress_future_action":{"enabled":false,"date":"2026-10-25 20:47:04","action":"change-status","newStatus":"draft","terms":[],"taxonomy":"category","extraData":[]},"publishpress_future_workflow_manual_trigger":{"enabledWorkflows":[]},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gpnewswire.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37125","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gpnewswire.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gpnewswire.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gpnewswire.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gpnewswire.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=37125"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/gpnewswire.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37125\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gpnewswire.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37125"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gpnewswire.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37125"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gpnewswire.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37125"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}