Page 1 of 1

Fake 1963 Franklin

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 6:06 pm
by beauanderos
Well... it had to happen. One of my favorite coins/year to stack 1963 Franklin half.

It weighs the right weight, every detail of the coin looks perfect... but you can clearly see a copper planchet beneath the thin layer of silver that coated its surface. Wear is on the high points on either side of the coin.

I can't take pictures, but trust me... if it weren't for the copper showing through... YOU would be fooled. Upon first cursory inspection, I thought it was one of those coins that people delight in marking with fingernail polish, and that someone had done a poor job of removing it, leaving a pinkish patina. But no, under a magnifying glass you can see where the plating is peeling off.

I just received it from a new dealer on BS whom I believe to be reputable. I will ask for a return for refund.

Re: Fake 1963 Franklin

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 6:13 pm
by 68Camaro
Correct diameter and thickness?

Re: Fake 1963 Franklin

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 6:19 pm
by beauanderos
68Camaro wrote:Correct diameter and thickness?

the width is right, it weighs 12.5 grams... it might be a hundredth of an inch thicker. Definitely clanks when you drop it, not rings. Like I said, if you didn't look closely, it just looks like smeared poorly removed nail polish on both sides.

I'd really like to keep it as an example of a fake (it's perfect, except for the wear points) but... I would like my money backv :shifty:

If I can recover my cost, I will offer if for sale for $11 shipped, and just inform the seller no further resolution is necessary, other than to be more careful in the future.

I've already emailed the seller, so you must be quick if you want this example. :shock:

Re: Fake 1963 Franklin

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 6:22 pm
by 68Camaro
It's got to have lead in it as well then - a silver-plated copper/lead hybrid. You can't create the same volume of material in a silver fake without using lead as one of the constituents.

Re: Fake 1963 Franklin

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 6:29 pm
by bankmining
Noooo! Bens' are my favorite form of 90% and I felt pretty good when Nate said in a much earlier post that he hadn't seen any Franklin fakes yet when he was doing his Chinese research.

Re: Fake 1963 Franklin

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 6:44 pm
by No82s
spot on 68!

Re: Fake 1963 Franklin

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 6:46 pm
by TXBullion
68Camaro wrote:It's got to have lead in it as well then - a silver-plated copper/lead hybrid. You can't create the same volume of material in a silver fake without using lead as one of the constituents.



I guess then the other serious issue becomes the handling of lead in addition to the counterfeiting.....

Re: Fake 1963 Franklin

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:02 pm
by Engineer
TXBullion wrote:
68Camaro wrote:It's got to have lead in it as well then - a silver-plated copper/lead hybrid. You can't create the same volume of material in a silver fake without using lead as one of the constituents.



I guess then the other serious issue becomes the handling of lead in addition to the counterfeiting.....


I just feed it to the kids and animals. It seems to keep them calmed down and out of trouble.

Re: Fake 1963 Franklin

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:02 pm
by beauanderos
TXBullion wrote:
68Camaro wrote:It's got to have lead in it as well then - a silver-plated copper/lead hybrid. You can't create the same volume of material in a silver fake without using lead as one of the constituents.



I guess then the other serious issue becomes the handling of lead in addition to the counterfeiting.....

does this mean that no one wants to buy it then? :lol:

Re: Fake 1963 Franklin

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:05 pm
by beauanderos
Dealer told me to keep it and he'll send a replacement.

I'm going to put this up in the KSA

Re: Fake 1963 Franklin

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:13 pm
by beauanderos

Re: Fake 1963 Franklin

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:39 pm
by beauanderos
ok, I'm not liking this. Found two more, after I ring tested and weighed all the others.

1948 - 12.7 grams... too "shiny" almost looks polished... but clunks when you drop it
1954 - 12.4 grams... has same look as above... also clunks when dropped.

Re: Fake 1963 Franklin

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:42 pm
by TXBullion
beauanderos wrote:ok, I'm not liking this. Found two more, after I ring tested and weighed all the others.

1948 - 12.7 grams... too "shiny" almost looks polished... but clunks when you drop it
1954 - 12.4 grams... has same look as above... also clunks when dropped.


Yikes!!!!

Re: Fake 1963 Franklin

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 8:05 pm
by beauanderos
beauanderos wrote:ok, I'm not liking this. Found two more, after I ring tested and weighed all the others.

1948 - 12.7 grams... too "shiny" almost looks polished... but clunks when you drop it
1954 - 12.4 grams... has same look as above... also clunks when dropped.

I'm sending these two back to the seller. Not asking for a refund. Told him if he feels they are fakes as well, then he can replace them... but if they seem authentic to him (after testing somehow... none of them are magnetic) then he can hold onto them and return them with my next batch of purchases. I'm not going to let a few bad apples spoil the cart, but this affair re-emphasizes the need to be careful. :thumbdown: