“Authenticated” Counterfeit 1901-S Barber Quarter
By Jack D. Young – The Dark Side Group
Four years ago, I worked with my friend Kevin Bailey, known to many collectors as KB, on a CoinWeek article about a certified 1901-S Barber quarter that did not prove genuine.
That case offered a clear lesson. In fact, it remains one of the most important lessons in counterfeit detection:
Attribution. Attribution. Attribution.
When collectors study key-date coins, they must look past the label. They must also study the coin. More importantly, they must confirm that every diagnostic detail matches the date, mintmark, and known die characteristics.
That point matters again here.
A Previous “Authenticated” Counterfeit 1901-S Barber Quarter
The earlier CoinWeek article examined a 1901-S Barber quarter that a third-party grading holder presented as genuine. However, the coin had serious problems.
Kevin Bailey had already written about that coin for the Barber Coin Collectors Society (BCCS). He also helped me with the technical details for my CoinWeek version.
That earlier coin turned out to be a “put together” piece. The counterfeiters had sandwiched an obverse and a different reverse together.
However, they made a major mistake.
They used the wrong “S” reverse. Specifically, they used a Reverse II. The Mint did not use that reverse beyond 1900. Therefore, a genuine 1901-S Barber quarter cannot carry that reverse.
That diagnostic detail should stop the coin cold.
The first article also included a key image that many people had overlooked. That feature remains important in this new discussion.
In hindsight, the earlier counterfeit also looked suspicious for another reason. The obverse and reverse showed drastically different colors. That contrast should raise concern during any careful review.
A New 1901-S Barber Quarter Raises Questions
Now, another troubling example has surfaced.
Members saw this “new” coin at a coin show. Once again, the coin sat in a third-party grading holder that presented it as genuine. BCCS members reviewed it and attributed it as counterfeit.
Then, one of my go-to contacts on these issues alerted me. He also pointed me to the current BCCS Journal, which discussed the coin.
The BCCS deserves credit for finding this example. Kevin Bailey also deserves credit for correctly identifying the issues.
At first, I focused on the reverse type. That approach made sense because the previous counterfeit carried the wrong reverse.
However, this new example goes even further.
The earlier counterfeit had the wrong reverse type. This new example has the wrong obverse, too. It carries a Type I obverse. Therefore, both hub types create problems for this coin.
That makes this example different from the previous counterfeit. It also makes the attribution case even stronger.
The Obverse Denticle Count Tells the Story
Kevin Bailey focused on a key diagnostic: the denticle count.
He wrote:
“The obverse denticle count of 116 absolutely confirms it as Obverse 1. It had previously been observed that the denticles shifted when going from Obv1 to Obv2 (and now Obv3); obverses 2 and 3 have 113.”
That matters.
A genuine 1901-S Barber quarter should not show this Obverse 1 diagnostic. The denticle count gives collectors a measurable feature. It also removes guesswork from the discussion.
In other words, this coin does not merely “look wrong.” Its hub diagnostics do not match what a genuine 1901-S should show.
Central States Images Help Confirm the Issue
The following images come from the deck used during the joint Liberty Seated Collectors Club (LSCC) and Barber Coin Collectors Society (BCCS) meeting at Central States.
These images helped illustrate the diagnostic concerns. They also supported the conclusion that this coin does not match the correct hub type for a genuine 1901-S Barber quarter.
After reviewing the BCCS image deck, I did my traditional “dumpster dive.” I then pulled images from a prior sale.
Those older images added another layer to the review.
The Date Shows Suspicious Activity
Next, I studied the date area.
The last “1” in the date shows suspicious activity. It also shows odd toning around the digit.
That may provide a clue.
However, the real question remains: What exactly is this coin?
One date offers a possible answer. The year 1900 appears with both combinations of the genuine hub types.
That fact matters because an altered-date theory requires a logical starting point. Also, the “S” mintmark appears close to a known genuine example. That would make the mintmark the easiest part of an altered date.
So, the best current guess may point in that direction.
Starting with a 1900 or 1900-O quarter, though, would require a lot of effort to turn it into the subject coin.
Could This Be a Struck Counterfeit?
Another possibility remains.
This coin could be a struck counterfeit from false dies. However, we have not seen another example like it.
That matters because struck counterfeits often appear in groups. When multiple examples show the same defects, researchers can link them. In this case, we do not yet have that pattern.
For now, the altered-date explanation may offer the best working theory. Still, collectors should keep an open mind until more evidence appears.
Why Do Coins Like This Get Missed?
This case also raises a bigger question.
Why do pieces like this get missed by the third-party graders?
Maybe graders do not always examine attribution details closely when they grade a coin. A coin can show the right general appearance, but the hub diagnostics still may not match.
That issue becomes especially important with rare key dates. The 1901-S Barber quarter carries major value. Therefore, counterfeiters have strong incentive to create deceptive examples.
Attribution details help protect the market.
They also protect collectors.
PCGS CoinFacts and the 1900-S Reverse Types
I also note one related issue.
PCGS CoinFacts does not appear to distinguish between the 1900-S variety with a Type II reverse and the 1900-S with a Type III reverse.
Their site shows both examples among the top three listed images. However, it notes only one variety.
That matters because these reverse distinctions help researchers identify what a coin can and cannot be. When references blur those differences, collectors may miss important diagnostics.
The TPG Received Notice
Sources told me that the third-party grading service received notice about this coin. I feel sure my contacts there also received the information.
Now, we will see what happens next.
Will the certification get addressed? Will the coin appear again in the marketplace?
Time will tell.
Meanwhile, we will continue to watch for other examples. If more appear, they may help us understand whether this piece came from an altered date, false dies, or another method.
Best as always,
Jack
