Confirmation for Swedish Livonia 1 Solidus, contemporary counterfeit? [opgelost]

Hello,

I received this coin from Swedish Livonia in a swap today:


And I want to know which coin page and year line I should register it in my collection on; I'm guessing somewhere here:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces42423.html

The 2x2 it came in was marked "faux d'époque" (contemporary counterfeit), as well as "fautée" and "frappe casquette" (offstruck error). Since it is very coppery and has crude characters (like the inverted N in Christina) I conclude that this is a poorly-struck Suceava mint contemporary counterfeit, is this attribution correct and am I right to list it on that page above?

Thanks!

Could be correct.
At 11 o'clock on te right picture I see 0
So you coin is 1650 (or 1660), I think
Perhaps you can contact Docman or Piotr
https://en.numista.com/echanges/profil.php?id=8154
https://en.numista.com/echanges/profil.php?id=62681

That certainly looks like a Suceava counterfeit to me! But you have the wrong page. Try this one:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces41643.html

(The griffin reverse is from the occupation of Livonia; the crossed keys reverse is from the occupation of Riga.)

As for the date, I do not recall ever seeing a Suceava example dated "50". I would say yours is most likely from the "60" date.

Thanks Petrus and Sulfur!

Citeer: "Sulfur"​
​As for the date, I do not recall ever seeing a Suceava example dated "50". I would say yours is most likely from the "60" date.

​Christina did not rule in 1660. That is wy my guess was 1650
And the 1650 does exist:
https://www.ma-shops.nl/arto/item.php?id=708
https://www.allnumis.com/coins-catalog/latvia/riga-swedish-occupation-1621-1710-christina-1632-1654/1-solidus-1650-29236
https://www.ebay.com/itm/253810314123
.....

1650:
1) CHRISTINA · D · G · D · R · S · / SOLIDVS · CIVI : RIG : 50 ·
legend on the coin
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces41643.html

I agree that yours looks very low in silver contents (if any).
Indeed very forged for me

Well yes, 1650 definitely does exist as a date for the real pieces, just not for the Suceava counterfeits. The pieces from Suceava usually (but not always) have fictitious dates on them, which means the dates can be a good indicator for whether or not a coin is a counterfeit. Of course, if the date is non-fictitious or is off-flan/mostly off-flan (like the example on this thread), you need to judge the coin on its overall appearance.

For example, if a coin looks extremely coppery and has crude, inverted letters, it is more than likely a Suceaca piece.

Nice response sulfur.