5th Variety of 1931 Penny discovered

[Yurist]

Echidna, regarding your image comparison at post #134, before jumping to conclusions about numeral misalignment, you needed to first ensure that your images were all correctly calibrated with each other.  

You must take full images of each coin and superimpose them so that you achieve a perfect alignment of every detail.  Believe me, that's much harder to do than you may think (but it's possible).  Once you've achieved that, you can start to compare the date alignments, and you will find that there is actually far less variation ('wriggle') than you expect.  

I have done the hard work for you.  See attached below the image of all 4 coins correctly superimposed over each other.  The amount of wriggle in the date numerals is extremely small (about the level you expect to see with mechanical doubling, which is caused by the die shifting (or bouncing) during the striking phase if it's not properly seated).  

The only significant variation that is ascertainable is with the dropped '1' due to UP8 anomaly, which is noted on my website at https://sites.google.com/view/1931dropped1indianpennyvariety/home/further-research

[attachment=3954]

[serenitystan]

The owner of Unicorn no 5 is no longer calling it a Unicorn..It's just a 1931 dropped one Indian with dot above S with CBL base letters..So are all the other Unicorns just variety 4 with cbl with numeral misalignment due to die shifting(bouncing) during the striking phase and no dot above S due to die fill...

[echidna]

Firstly, what is required are proper high res pics.
Until then this debate will just go around in circles.
Because its impossible to prove anything much until then either way.

Next, we actually need images taken with a digital microscope of the date areas.
If they are fake then there will be ample evidence of alterations.
If genuine then it will be obvious.

Regarding the issues with the date numerals, the ideal way to demonstrate the variations is by ortho rectifying the images.
Its mathematical and precise down to the individual pixels.
I can do this, but its not worthwhile with the low res images provided so far.
Happy to provide further info about this process.

Regarding the question as to why the fakers would use a 1929 Indian, its a matter of cost.
Technically the best donor coin would be a 1931 Indian die with the normal date I guess.
Cost wise about $50 a pop.
Next best is a 27 Indian, again about $50 each.
A 1929 Indian can be picked up for a few cents.

Further to this issue of 1929 Indians please check these images.
There is a die flaw visible on SOME 29 Indians.
I can see the same flaw on Unicorn number 8.
Again the resolution is frustratingly not good enough, however it looks like a match to me.

" 
" /

[Basil]

Good work Echi,i hope Eric can back you up down the track,he thought the original 1931 Indian Coin from last year was a fake. All this is way past my pay grade but certainly an interesting Thread.

[Yurist]

Echidna, I have requested the zoomed hi-res images and will work on getting some of the coins photographed with a digital microscope.    

Regarding your suggested donor coins, please remember that the coin supposedly being emulated is the FBL 1931 dropped '1' Ind. Obv penny. Therefore:

1. The 1929 is CBL not FBL.  Plus it would require perfect replacement of the leftmost '1', as well as the '3' and the dropped '1'.  That is, three date numerals would need to be replaced on the wrong (CBL) planchette.  Doesn't sound very credible that a master faker would go to such trouble and then try to pass off a CBL coin for an FBL.  Nonsense!  

2. The 1927 is also CBL and not FBL.  However, this coin can be immediately excluded as a donor coin for the obvious reason of the fourth pearl in the Crown being considerably smaller (a well-known die marker that Fred, and others, have written extensively about).  FYI, the UP's obverse features a larger 4th pearl.  

3.  The 1931 Indian obverse is an FBL coin, so obviously cannot be a donor for a UP, which is CBL.

Let me know if you come up with any more donor coins you wish to consider.

[Yurist]

The owner of Unicorn no 5 is no longer calling it a Unicorn..It's just a 1931 dropped one Indian with dot above S with CBL base letters..So are all the other Unicorns just variety 4 with cbl with numeral misalignment due to die shifting(bouncing) during the striking phase and no dot above S due to die fill...

Not sure what you mean.  I can't find any online listing of UP5 anywhere.  If you're referring to some eBay listing of a 1931 dropped '1' Indian obverse, I personally cannot see any CBL coins currently there.  

As to your question, the answer is 'no'.  The benchmark 4th variety is an FBL coin, whereas the Unicorn Penny is a CBL coin.  

Hope that clarifies the confusion.  Let me know if you have any further questions.

[echidna]

Echidna, I have requested the zoomed hi-res images and will work on getting some of the coins photographed with a digital microscope.    

Regarding your suggested donor coins, please remember that the coin supposedly being emulated is the FBL 1931 dropped '1' Ind. Obv penny. Therefore:

1. The 1929 is CBL not FBL.  Plus it would require perfect replacement of the leftmost '1', as well as the '3' and the dropped '1'.  That is, three date numerals would need to be replaced on the wrong (CBL) planchette.  Doesn't sound very credible that a master faker would go to such trouble and then try to pass off a CBL coin for an FBL.  Nonsense!  

2. The 1927 is also CBL and not FBL.  However, this coin can be immediately excluded as a donor coin for the obvious reason of the fourth pearl in the Crown being considerably smaller (a well-known die marker that Fred, and others, have written extensively about).  FYI, the UP's obverse features a larger 4th pearl.  

3.  The 1931 Indian obverse is an FBL coin, so obviously cannot be a donor for a UP, which is CBL.

Let me know if you come up with any more donor coins you wish to consider.

You are overthinking the issue.
The fakers are not targeting knowledgeable collectors.
Their target is novice collectors who dont know about FBL & CBL etc.
Who would not be able to tell the difference between genuine and fake.
So it doesnt really matter that its CBL and the fourth pearl is the wrong shape.
And that there is no dot after the S.
It just needs to be a 1931 penny with a dropped 1 and Indian die.

[Yurist]

The 1931 dropped '1' Ind. Obv. penny is not a coin for the novice collector.  Unlike the 1930 penny, it is not widely known to the general public.  It is a highly specific coin that usually attracts collectors with considerable knowledge and experience.  For that reason, fakers are not motivated to reproduce this coin, which explains why (unlike the flood of fake 1930 pennies) there are very few 1931 penny reproductions around, and certainly none that are any good.    

The fact remains, that if you are a highly skilled faker, you're unlikely to invest your considerable time and effort into reproducing a highly specific coin that mostly appeals to a relatively small audience of coin nerds like us.

However, if you insist that a faker would nevertheless be interested in creating a reproduction of the 1931 dropped '1' Ind. Obv. penny to target the novice collector, then wouldn't it be much easier to take a 1931 Indian obverse penny and simply drop the 1?  Why go to the trouble of using a 1929 Indian penny as a donor?  

So far, none of the theories that the Unicorn Pennies are fakes seem to hold any water.

[echidna]

The 1931 dropped '1' Ind. Obv. penny is not a coin for the novice collector.  Unlike the 1930 penny, it is not widely known to the general public.  It is a highly specific coin that usually attracts collectors with considerable knowledge and experience.  For that reason, fakers are not motivated to reproduce this coin, which explains why (unlike the flood of fake 1930 pennies) there are very few 1931 penny reproductions around, and certainly none that are any good.    

The fact remains, that if you are a highly skilled faker, you're unlikely to invest your considerable time and effort into reproducing a highly specific coin that mostly appeals to a relatively small audience of coin nerds like us.

However, if you insist that a faker would nevertheless be interested in creating a reproduction of the 1931 dropped '1' Ind. Obv. penny to target the novice collector, then wouldn't it be much easier to take a 1931 Indian obverse penny and simply drop the 1?  Why go to the trouble of using a 1929 Indian penny as a donor?  

So far, none of the theories that the Unicorn Pennies are fakes seem to hold any water.

Yes technically the best donor coin would be a 31 Indian.
Drop the 1, maybe replace the 3 as well - its the wrong shape.
Cost wise $50 a pop however.
29 Indians can be picked up for a few cents.
Its the best low cost option.

[serenitystan]

The owner of Unicorn no 5 is no longer calling it a Unicorn..It's just a 1931 dropped one Indian with dot above S with CBL base letters..So are all the other Unicorns just variety 4 with cbl with numeral misalignment due to die shifting(bouncing) during the striking phase and no dot above S due to die fill...

Not sure what you mean.  I can't find any online listing of UP5 anywhere.  If you're referring to some eBay listing of a 1931 dropped '1' Indian obverse, I personally cannot see any CBL coins currently there.  

As to your question, the answer is 'no'.  The benchmark 4th variety is an FBL coin, whereas the Unicorn Penny is a CBL coin.  

Hope that clarifies the confusion.  Let me know if you have any further questions.     Thank's for the info. Now i know who the owner of UP5 is...

[echidna]

" 
" /

Yurist said "However, if you insist that a faker would nevertheless be interested in creating a reproduction of the 1931 dropped '1' Ind. Obv. penny to target the novice collector..."

Yes I do insist.
And here it is.
According to Yurist this coin should not exist.
Its a FAKE dropped 1 Indian (el-cheapo version).
Looks exactly the same as a "Unicorn" except that they really botched the date on this one.

Fact is that the fakers are going after the low end market with cheap fakes such as this.
Most likely choice for the donor coin is a 29 Indian.
Simple really, but Yurist didnt even consider this possibility.

[fred lever]

Well Echidna, at last!
Another CBL drop 31!
Something to look at and compare with the other coins.
I can do some comparative measurements.
The coin could do with a good wash to get all that greasy stuff off!
The gunk makes it hard to see any tool work about the digits or hub/die markers.
Fred.

[serenitystan]

Well Echidna, at last!
Another CBL drop 31!
Something to look at and compare with the other coins.
I can do some comparative measurements.
The coin could do with a good wash to get all that greasy stuff off!
The gunk makes it hard to see any tool work about the digits or hub/die markers.
Fred.    Also don't use acetone as the 3 + 1 could fall off...

[Yurist]

Well Echidna, at last!
Another CBL drop 31!
Something to look at and compare with the other coins.
I can do some comparative measurements.
The coin could do with a good wash to get all that greasy stuff off!
The gunk makes it hard to see any tool work about the digits or hub/die markers.
Fred.    Also don't use acetone as the 3 + 1 could fall off...

Hi Fred, 

I'm not getting my hopes up on this one.  On first impression the leftmost '1' has a pointy nose.   That's not a UP trait.  

Also, the distance between the leftmost '1' and the '9' is more consistent with the 1929.   

See attached images below.  


Of course, it needs a brushing to reveal more detail, but on initial analysis it looks dodgy to me.  Most likely an altered 1929.  

As I said to Echidna, "...there are very few 1931 penny reproductions around, and certainly none that are any good".  

The point is that making a good fake requires a considerable amount of skill and effort.  Only then can a faker warrant the high price tag that would make their job worth while.  The inherent contradiction is that you're never going to get a good quality fake from a CBL donor coin.  The reason why there are so few 'el cheapo' fakes out there is that there is no mass awareness of the 1931 dropped '1' Indian penny.  So, collectors are not buying them for gap fillers (as is the case with the 1930 fakes) and most novices would not be in the market for one, certainly not at a high price.  

Sorry Echidna, it still doesn't make sense.  But thank you for digging up this apparent fake.  I must admit it made my heart pound for a few seconds.

[Yurist]

------