@ChrisH821 said:
I think I have a slab that is the same as that one... when I get home this evening I will check and get back. I seem to remember seeing one where the hologram covers the QR code and logo on the insert.
I have had slabs with this issue. I do not have one at this moment to photograph though. I always attributed it to sloppy application of the hologram at PCGS.
@Insider2 ...He mentioned a letter, however, as I read it, he decided to send it back....@joebb21....Could you please clarify this point? Thank you...Cheers, RickO
There ain't no such thing as an "expert" and I'm suspicious of any man/woman who says they are. Everyone makes errors and none of us is done learning! That said, there are a lot of very respected folks who know a lot in their chosen fields of numismatics. The simple fact that I've disagreed with many of them shows I'm not one.
@joebb21 said: "Thanks but I trust my judgment and am willing to stand behind it. My pictures and explanation and A LETTER FROM PCGS confirming my statements about oddities in the slab will be enough proof that something about the coin/holder was fraudulent."
@joebb21 said: "Thanks but I trust my judgment and am willing to stand behind it. My pictures and explanation and A LETTER FROM PCGS confirming my statements about oddities in the slab will be enough proof that something about the coin/holder was fraudulent."
Yes, but does that letter exist or is he assuming he can get one. I should be surprised if they responded so quickly
@joebb21 said: "Thanks but I trust my judgment and am willing to stand behind it. My pictures and explanation and A LETTER FROM PCGS confirming my statements about oddities in the slab will be enough proof that something about the coin/holder was fraudulent."
Yes, but does that letter exist or is he assuming he can get one. I should be surprised if they responded so quickly
I do NOT have a letter in hand. In past situations I have sent the coin for pcgs to examine and they have responded with the a letter back and somehow destroying the slab. I do retain a collection of the slabs I have removed from the market and sent to Annibal Almeida from PCGS to confirm what I already new. In this case it was just not worth it. I made mention of a letter as I felt so strong the signs against this slab being a problem that I overconfidently assumed I would get a letter from them.
However, I just decided to send the coin back then have to jump through the hoops.
I did send along to the seller a free coin that was also in the new PCGS holder that I stickered up with pink stickers (on the bad slab) and white stickers on the real one that clearly identifies the problems and questions this slab called into.
Hopefully the seller will do the right thing and not try and resell it.
Soooooooo guess what I bought recently (not OP here)!
The seller has committed to refunding me, and is being an all around great guy about it. BUT I've discussed it with him and we're going to see if we can send it off to PCGS for authentication. I am curious who the original seller was - if @joebb21 could PM me (I'll keep it to myself because it is possibly an honest mistake), I'd be curious if we could establish a trail here.
I thought this slab looked a little odd when I received it, especially as others have pointed out the Gen 4 hologram OVER the Gen 6 QR code. The coin in my opinion, as others have also said, looks the grade and looks authentic under my loupe.
Here's a closeup of the hologram. As you can see, the lettering is either black or the same color as the backdrop:
Here are two generation 4.3 examples, very similar slab generation overall to what we're looking at (pre-TriView):
Notice how much space is above the letters on the genuine examples. It does NOT match at all the slab in question. I'll be posting detailed dimensions soon.
Here are measurements versus a 4.3 slab I have. I didn't find many differences in the 4.5 slabs I have, but I think comparing to a 4.4 would be optimal (I don't have one available):
Here's a closeup of the front embossed logo on the slab in question:
And here are two 4.3 examples:
As you can see, VERY different and would be identifiable under a loupe. This logo may match another generation; chime in if you know which one.
Also the surface is VERY rough as you can see in the photo compared to the genuine examples. PCGS uses a smooth sandblasted effect on theirs that feels nice on your fingernail. I could almost file mine with the one in question.
Here it is sandwiched between the other 4.3 slabs:
As you can see, it's WAY cloudier, and has cracks all over which the other ones lack. The real ones have bubbles around the edges like you normally see, and a few little marks, but it's night and day.
@blitzdude said:
Interesting, looks like the slab has been around the block and abused a bit since the last time she was here. Are you planning to have PCGS evaluate?
Yes. I'm inquiring now as to the exact process for that. I guess I could just send it in for a reslab and see what happens, but I'm curious if there's a process for suspected counterfeits that's slightly different. If anyone knows, I'd love to hear.
This is a very interesting and educational thread. I will be waiting with bated breath to hear what our hosts say about this one. The coin looks real in all aspects to me, but that slab is a huge question mark...
Nice coin you got there! As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Annibal Almeida was my go to person to speak with regarding fake slabs. Im not sure who the go to person is these days with the changing of the guard, but a quick shout-out to @HeatherBoyd should give us some information.
Unfortunately I have seen SO MANY bad/counterfeit/fake pcgs coins over the last couple of years that i just cant go around buying them off the market and waiting to be refunded (though if pcgs wants to offer me the job and it pays well...) These days I just post them and hope we can get ebay to pull the listing before it gets sold.
@derryb said:
I nominate dorganmaulers to the forum's board of slab forensics specialists.
Good research and presentation dorganmaulers.
Well I'm honored; thank you very much. As someone very new to the hobby (a couple months), it's a real treat to find that other people here appreciate the details.
@joebb21 said:
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Annibal Almeida was my go to person to speak with regarding fake slabs. Im not sure who the go to person is these days with the changing of the guard, but a quick shout-out to @HeatherBoyd should give us some information.
Hopefully it does - I'll be calling them tomorrow as I found instructions here on how to do this:
dorganmaulers, the guarantee you mention only applies to stuff they graded and encapsulated.
There have been cases in the past where counterfeit slabs were made with sandwiched coin pieces selling for $5-10K. The coin halves are authentic but the slab is not. If you do not understand what I mean when I say sandwiched, 2 common date/mm are used to start. The front half of one and the back half of the other are shaved or tooled off and glued together. This is put into a fake slab.
Examples I know of are 1932-D and S quarters and 1945-P FB dimes.
There have been cases in the past where counterfeit slabs were made with sandwiched coin pieces...
Oh wow thanks for that - it would explain why this coin looks so good to everyone including myself. We'll see what customer service says on the phone. That's probably the best approach.
I just noticed the obverse half has cracks near 2 o'clock and 9 o'clock. This could account for sound difference.
There is a possibility all of the components of the slab/label are authentic but from a different coin (or coins). At PCGS the slabs are sonically sealed (like a plastic weld). There are occasions when the seal is poor. Quite a few PCGS slabs are crack and coins resubmitted for possible better grade.
The cloudiness around the periphery is discouraging, as it could be glue holding the slab together.
I'm pretty sure the cloudiness and sound difference is from a different plastic used. It's hard to really display that here, but if you held it you'd know what I mean. I have some other slabs that have superficial cracks and they feel and sound authentic.
Also, I called PCGS last night and they told me to send the coin in with the correct service level and the service type as Other: Holder Check. They said if I wanted it reholdered to write that in the comments on the form. On this one, if it is an authentic coin in a fake slab, I do want it reholdered and regraded. I plan to send that out shortly.
I got a bunch of closeups with the microscope of the coin itself and the slab again. I see little pits all over the coin that are unusual - they aren't nicks from other coins and such, they are almost like casting pits, but I'm pretty confident this is a struck coin.
On BS&T Now: Nothing. Fighting the Fight for 11 Years with the big "C" - Never Ever Give Up! Member PCGS Open Forum board 2002 - 2006 (closed end of 2006) Current board since 2006 Successful trades with many members, over the past two decades, never a bad deal.
I'm looking forward to seeing your slab labels and hologram to see if there's a match there! Thanks for posting! I also noticed 1884-S is found on VAMWorld's counterfeit page and looks pretty similar except for the label:
@dorganmaulers said:
I got a bunch of closeups with the microscope of the coin itself and the slab again. I see little pits all over the coin that are unusual - they aren't nicks from other coins and such, they are almost like casting pits, but I'm pretty confident this is a struck coin.
Quick update: about to send this out to PCGS as part of a larger order. The highest level of service in the submission will be Regular so hopefully it won't take too long.
So while different generation slabs have slightly different weights, including dropping some weight by gen 6, the slab in question definitely seems a lot lighter than the norm here.
Thanks to the information here, I know that a G-4 should weigh about 1g less than MS, and AU should be REALLY close to the same weight as an MS coin. So, this means the either the holder is off weight OR the coin inside is off weight by 4g considering the features of the holder (looks most like the 4.3 holder).
@davewesen said:
did you send it off yet? I am starting to think you should try to get a refund, unless you don't mind eating the loss.
Already discussed with seller and he's comfortable with me sending it off. I'm waiting on a few items from a friend to throw into the order to get the shipping fees down a bit ($40 for one coin back and forth is a lot), and because of the holidays no one is in a hurry
@Rexford said:
I don't think the coin or the slab are fake.
Interesting - do you have a slab that's the same - gen 4 hologram covering the gen 6 QR code on the back, large interlocking front tabs with a blue+white label? I'd be VERY interested to see another example of this Frankenstein's monster of a slab. Generation 4.6 is the closest, but the back of the label is wrong on that one (no QR code).
@Rexford said:
I don't think the coin or the slab are fake.
Interesting - do you have a slab that's the same - gen 4 hologram covering the gen 6 QR code on the back, large interlocking front tabs with a blue+white label? I'd be VERY interested to see another example of this Frankenstein's monster of a slab. Generation 4.6 is the closest, but the back of the label is wrong on that one (no QR code).
I think you're reading a little too much into the details. Usually it's pretty easy to tell that a fake slab is fake from a significant distance. The coins within fake slabs are also often blatantly fake, but sometimes may be more difficult to detect as such, but I have never seen a fake PCGS slab that has fooled me after a closer look. All I see here is a lightly knocked around, but entirely normal, slab. The close-ups of the corner part of the slab don't demonstrate any major irregularities that I can see, and the coin looks altogether genuine although I'm no Morgan expert. I mean, the slab even has the little knobs in the corners that help it stack well with other slabs. These almost never appear on fake slabs. Additionally, the fake labels inside fake slabs are usually horrendously made, but this one shows no issues that I can detect. It even has the hologram on the reverse of the label, inside the slab. The material the slab is made of also looks right - look at the way it chipped at the bottom. So essentially you've got a label that is extremely likely to be real, a slab that displays details at a magnified level that correspond to those of a real slab, and a coin that at the very least would need to be a very well-made fake, and looks right for the assigned grade (often fake coins in fake slabs look like they would be wildly over- or undergraded if real, and often look polished, like the other one shown in this thread). The combination of these three things all being fake would be very unlikely. As far as taking a real holder and a real slab and putting a fake coin in it, this would be nearly impossible, because PCGS slabs simply cannot be broken open and put back together - so you have to keep in mind that if the coin is fake and it's not an authenticity mistake by PCGS, then the slab basically must be fake as well.
Regarding the slab generations, it seems the simplest solution to me that the coin was holdered in the Gen 6.0 era, probably in mid-2015, but using a leftover Gen 4.6 slab with the 4.6 hologram pre-attached to it from a few months earlier.
@Rexford said:
I don't think the coin or the slab are fake.
Interesting - do you have a slab that's the same - gen 4 hologram covering the gen 6 QR code on the back, large interlocking front tabs with a blue+white label? I'd be VERY interested to see another example of this Frankenstein's monster of a slab. Generation 4.6 is the closest, but the back of the label is wrong on that one (no QR code).
I mean, the slab even has the little knobs in the corners that help it stack well with other slabs. These almost never appear on fake slabs.
Additionally, the fake labels inside fake slabs are usually horrendously made, but this one shows no issues that I can detect.
It is badly made and if you held it you'd agree it feels cheap and wrong compared to any real PCGS slab.
It even has the hologram on the reverse of the label, inside the slab.
FALSE! It's outside the slab, peeling badly and looks REALLY cheap (doesn't reflect right at all). Oh and all the offsets from the logo to the edge of the hologram are completely wrong - several mm off.
The material the slab is made of also looks right - look at the way it chipped at the bottom.
Then why is it so light?
So essentially you've got a label that is extremely likely to be real
Even though no one can find me an example of a real QR code gen 6 label without an embedded bottom hologram
a coin that at the very least would need to be a very well-made fake, and looks right for the assigned grade (often fake coins in fake slabs look like they would be wildly over- or undergraded if real, and often look polished, like the other one shown in this thread).
I agree the coin appears to be real or a VERY good fake. There are other very good fakes that fool collectors all the time though, and no one looks twice at an AU mid-tier coin like they do an MS key date.
The combination of these three things all being fake would be very unlikely. As far as taking a real holder and a real slab and putting a fake coin in it, this would be nearly impossible, because PCGS slabs simply cannot be broken open and put back together - so you have to keep in mind that if the coin is fake and it's not an authenticity mistake by PCGS, then the slab basically must be fake as well.
I agree that this is not likely to be a reslab using an authentic holder - my money is on the slab being entirely fake, but the coin I'm completely unsure of at this point.
Regarding the slab generations, it seems the simplest solution to me that the coin was holdered in the Gen 6.0 era, probably in mid-2015, but using a leftover Gen 4.6 slab with the 4.6 hologram pre-attached to it from a few months earlier.
Why would PCGS do something like that? It seems extremely unprofessional. Have you come across other slabs where this has occurred? If I had received this from PCGS I would have immediately asked for a reslab or refund. Unless you can show me a picture of a similar slab, I'm going with all my instincts here that this is extremely fishy.
I understand it's hard to convey a lot of this (the feel of the slab, the sound it makes, etc.) over the internet, but there's enough here to DEFINITELY get it checked by PCGS. Regardless of the outcome, this horrible slab will be gone forever (I'm asking them to reslab if genuine), and no one will be stuck with it again to face the same fate. If indeed PCGS put this together, they should really reslab for free. If it's fake I'm happy to help remove it from the market. It's not fair to other collectors to allow this to circulate.
Comments
Looks like a mix of 4.5 reverse and 5.0 obverse
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
Was graded around August of 2016. I would have to go find some of my coins from back then to look at the holder. I think it is legit.
Bar code is correct
Wow, looks like the OP has returned a very rare slab!
This is an interesting thread....It would have been great to send it to PCGS for analysis. Cheers, RickO
I believe I read here that he claimed to have a letter from PCGS.
I have had slabs with this issue. I do not have one at this moment to photograph though. I always attributed it to sloppy application of the hologram at PCGS.
@Insider2 ...He mentioned a letter, however, as I read it, he decided to send it back....@joebb21....Could you please clarify this point? Thank you...Cheers, RickO
I really would like a PCGS opinion. It would be helpful if any of us encountered similar slabs
There ain't no such thing as an "expert" and I'm suspicious of any man/woman who says they are. Everyone makes errors and none of us is done learning! That said, there are a lot of very respected folks who know a lot in their chosen fields of numismatics. The simple fact that I've
disagreed with many of them shows I'm not one. 
@ricko
@joebb21 said: "Thanks but I trust my judgment and am willing to stand behind it. My pictures and explanation and A LETTER FROM PCGS confirming my statements about oddities in the slab will be enough proof that something about the coin/holder was fraudulent."
Yes, but does that letter exist or is he assuming he can get one. I should be surprised if they responded so quickly
I do NOT have a letter in hand. In past situations I have sent the coin for pcgs to examine and they have responded with the a letter back and somehow destroying the slab. I do retain a collection of the slabs I have removed from the market and sent to Annibal Almeida from PCGS to confirm what I already new. In this case it was just not worth it. I made mention of a letter as I felt so strong the signs against this slab being a problem that I overconfidently assumed I would get a letter from them.
However, I just decided to send the coin back then have to jump through the hoops.
I did send along to the seller a free coin that was also in the new PCGS holder that I stickered up with pink stickers (on the bad slab) and white stickers on the real one that clearly identifies the problems and questions this slab called into.
Hopefully the seller will do the right thing and not try and resell it.
Too bad we couldn't get this to our host for evaluation. I would love to hear what is fake.
EAC 6024
Soooooooo guess what I bought recently (not OP here)!
The seller has committed to refunding me, and is being an all around great guy about it. BUT I've discussed it with him and we're going to see if we can send it off to PCGS for authentication. I am curious who the original seller was - if @joebb21 could PM me (I'll keep it to myself because it is possibly an honest mistake), I'd be curious if we could establish a trail here.
I thought this slab looked a little odd when I received it, especially as others have pointed out the Gen 4 hologram OVER the Gen 6 QR code. The coin in my opinion, as others have also said, looks the grade and looks authentic under my loupe.
Full resolution microscope pictures of coin here, any help is appreciated:
https://imgur.com/a/1teITRz
More information to follow! I'm awaiting PCGS's response to my inquiry about sending it in. I'm not sure of the best way to do that.
Edit: banning this thread in China:
Here's a closeup of the hologram. As you can see, the lettering is either black or the same color as the backdrop:
Here are two generation 4.3 examples, very similar slab generation overall to what we're looking at (pre-TriView):
Notice how much space is above the letters on the genuine examples. It does NOT match at all the slab in question. I'll be posting detailed dimensions soon.
Here are measurements versus a 4.3 slab I have. I didn't find many differences in the 4.5 slabs I have, but I think comparing to a 4.4 would be optimal (I don't have one available):
Here's a closeup of the front embossed logo on the slab in question:
And here are two 4.3 examples:
As you can see, VERY different and would be identifiable under a loupe. This logo may match another generation; chime in if you know which one.
Also the surface is VERY rough as you can see in the photo compared to the genuine examples. PCGS uses a smooth sandblasted effect on theirs that feels nice on your fingernail. I could almost file mine with the one in question.
Here it is sandwiched between the other 4.3 slabs:
As you can see, it's WAY cloudier, and has cracks all over which the other ones lack. The real ones have bubbles around the edges like you normally see, and a few little marks, but it's night and day.
Wow!
As OP said, it doesn't sound right. Take a listen! The first one is a genuine 4.3 slab, and the second one is the slab in question.
Interesting, looks like the slab has been around the block and abused a bit since the last time she was here. Are you planning to have PCGS evaluate?
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
Yes. I'm inquiring now as to the exact process for that. I guess I could just send it in for a reslab and see what happens, but I'm curious if there's a process for suspected counterfeits that's slightly different. If anyone knows, I'd love to hear.
This is a very interesting and educational thread. I will be waiting with bated breath to hear what our hosts say about this one. The coin looks real in all aspects to me, but that slab is a huge question mark...
mbogoman
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/classic-issues-colonials-through-1964/zambezi-collection-trade-dollars/7345Asesabi Lutho
@dorganmaulers
Nice coin you got there! As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Annibal Almeida was my go to person to speak with regarding fake slabs. Im not sure who the go to person is these days with the changing of the guard, but a quick shout-out to @HeatherBoyd should give us some information.
Unfortunately I have seen SO MANY bad/counterfeit/fake pcgs coins over the last couple of years that i just cant go around buying them off the market and waiting to be refunded (though if pcgs wants to offer me the job and it pays well...) These days I just post them and hope we can get ebay to pull the listing before it gets sold.
Pm being sent with whom I bought it from.
I nominate dorganmaulers to the forum's board of slab forensics specialists.
Good research and presentation dorganmaulers.
Economic headlines the mainstream media are hiding from you.
Well I'm honored; thank you very much. As someone very new to the hobby (a couple months), it's a real treat to find that other people here appreciate the details.
Hopefully it does - I'll be calling them tomorrow as I found instructions here on how to do this:
https://www.pcgs.com/guarantee
dorganmaulers, the guarantee you mention only applies to stuff they graded and encapsulated.
There have been cases in the past where counterfeit slabs were made with sandwiched coin pieces selling for $5-10K. The coin halves are authentic but the slab is not. If you do not understand what I mean when I say sandwiched, 2 common date/mm are used to start. The front half of one and the back half of the other are shaved or tooled off and glued together. This is put into a fake slab.
Examples I know of are 1932-D and S quarters and 1945-P FB dimes.
Oh wow thanks for that - it would explain why this coin looks so good to everyone including myself. We'll see what customer service says on the phone. That's probably the best approach.
I just noticed the obverse half has cracks near 2 o'clock and 9 o'clock. This could account for sound difference.
There is a possibility all of the components of the slab/label are authentic but from a different coin (or coins). At PCGS the slabs are sonically sealed (like a plastic weld). There are occasions when the seal is poor. Quite a few PCGS slabs are crack and coins resubmitted for possible better grade.
The cloudiness around the periphery is discouraging, as it could be glue holding the slab together.
I'm pretty sure the cloudiness and sound difference is from a different plastic used. It's hard to really display that here, but if you held it you'd know what I mean. I have some other slabs that have superficial cracks and they feel and sound authentic.
Got this beauty today to get some better pictures. It's Chinese.
Also, I called PCGS last night and they told me to send the coin in with the correct service level and the service type as Other: Holder Check. They said if I wanted it reholdered to write that in the comments on the form. On this one, if it is an authentic coin in a fake slab, I do want it reholdered and regraded. I plan to send that out shortly.
That is a nice camera/stand and lights. I got one but did not figure out how to hook to my laptop. I never thought of taking a picture of the screen.
This one takes a memory card and you can hook it up to the computer with USB to copy the photos. The model is Andonstar ADSM301
I got a bunch of closeups with the microscope of the coin itself and the slab again. I see little pits all over the coin that are unusual - they aren't nicks from other coins and such, they are almost like casting pits, but I'm pretty confident this is a struck coin.
Here's an example on the cotton blossoms:
Let me know what you think. Here is a link to the entire album.
Xxx
Fighting the Fight for 11 Years with the big "C" - Never Ever Give Up!
Member PCGS Open Forum board 2002 - 2006 (closed end of 2006) Current board since 2006 Successful trades with many members, over the past two decades, never a bad deal.
It's above in the thread:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/12490112/#Comment_12490112
I'm looking forward to seeing your slab labels and hologram to see if there's a match there! Thanks for posting! I also noticed 1884-S is found on VAMWorld's counterfeit page and looks pretty similar except for the label:
http://ec2-13-58-222-16.us-east-2.compute.amazonaws.com/wiki/COUNTERFEIT_PAGE
Do those pitted spots show up with a loupe or did you need a microscope to see them?
I just checked and I can see them with my 10X loupe, but they are very easy to miss. If I didn't know they were there I'd probably miss them.
Quick update: about to send this out to PCGS as part of a larger order. The highest level of service in the submission will be Regular so hopefully it won't take too long.
Alright don't know why I didn't try this earlier. Here's some weight comparisons!
Slab in question: 51.6g
Generation 6.0 holdered MS65+: 52.6g
Generation 4.5 MS64: 54.8g
Generation 4.3 MS63: 55.4g
Generation 3.1 MS64: 55.4g
So while different generation slabs have slightly different weights, including dropping some weight by gen 6, the slab in question definitely seems a lot lighter than the norm here.
Thanks to the information here, I know that a G-4 should weigh about 1g less than MS, and AU should be REALLY close to the same weight as an MS coin. So, this means the either the holder is off weight OR the coin inside is off weight by 4g considering the features of the holder (looks most like the 4.3 holder).
did you send it off yet? I am starting to think you should try to get a refund, unless you don't mind eating the loss.
I don't think the coin or the slab are fake.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Already discussed with seller and he's comfortable with me sending it off. I'm waiting on a few items from a friend to throw into the order to get the shipping fees down a bit ($40 for one coin back and forth is a lot), and because of the holidays no one is in a hurry
Interesting - do you have a slab that's the same - gen 4 hologram covering the gen 6 QR code on the back, large interlocking front tabs with a blue+white label? I'd be VERY interested to see another example of this Frankenstein's monster of a slab. Generation 4.6 is the closest, but the back of the label is wrong on that one (no QR code).
Oh and it has to clang when you drop it on the table versus making that satisfying hollow PCGS slab sound.
I think you're reading a little too much into the details. Usually it's pretty easy to tell that a fake slab is fake from a significant distance. The coins within fake slabs are also often blatantly fake, but sometimes may be more difficult to detect as such, but I have never seen a fake PCGS slab that has fooled me after a closer look. All I see here is a lightly knocked around, but entirely normal, slab. The close-ups of the corner part of the slab don't demonstrate any major irregularities that I can see, and the coin looks altogether genuine although I'm no Morgan expert. I mean, the slab even has the little knobs in the corners that help it stack well with other slabs. These almost never appear on fake slabs. Additionally, the fake labels inside fake slabs are usually horrendously made, but this one shows no issues that I can detect. It even has the hologram on the reverse of the label, inside the slab. The material the slab is made of also looks right - look at the way it chipped at the bottom. So essentially you've got a label that is extremely likely to be real, a slab that displays details at a magnified level that correspond to those of a real slab, and a coin that at the very least would need to be a very well-made fake, and looks right for the assigned grade (often fake coins in fake slabs look like they would be wildly over- or undergraded if real, and often look polished, like the other one shown in this thread). The combination of these three things all being fake would be very unlikely. As far as taking a real holder and a real slab and putting a fake coin in it, this would be nearly impossible, because PCGS slabs simply cannot be broken open and put back together - so you have to keep in mind that if the coin is fake and it's not an authenticity mistake by PCGS, then the slab basically must be fake as well.
Regarding the slab generations, it seems the simplest solution to me that the coin was holdered in the Gen 6.0 era, probably in mid-2015, but using a leftover Gen 4.6 slab with the 4.6 hologram pre-attached to it from a few months earlier.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
I disagree - evidence here
It is badly made and if you held it you'd agree it feels cheap and wrong compared to any real PCGS slab.
FALSE! It's outside the slab, peeling badly and looks REALLY cheap (doesn't reflect right at all). Oh and all the offsets from the logo to the edge of the hologram are completely wrong - several mm off.
Then why is it so light?
Even though no one can find me an example of a real QR code gen 6 label without an embedded bottom hologram
I agree the coin appears to be real or a VERY good fake. There are other very good fakes that fool collectors all the time though, and no one looks twice at an AU mid-tier coin like they do an MS key date.
I agree that this is not likely to be a reslab using an authentic holder - my money is on the slab being entirely fake, but the coin I'm completely unsure of at this point.
Why would PCGS do something like that? It seems extremely unprofessional. Have you come across other slabs where this has occurred? If I had received this from PCGS I would have immediately asked for a reslab or refund. Unless you can show me a picture of a similar slab, I'm going with all my instincts here that this is extremely fishy.
I understand it's hard to convey a lot of this (the feel of the slab, the sound it makes, etc.) over the internet, but there's enough here to DEFINITELY get it checked by PCGS. Regardless of the outcome, this horrible slab will be gone forever (I'm asking them to reslab if genuine), and no one will be stuck with it again to face the same fate. If indeed PCGS put this together, they should really reslab for free. If it's fake I'm happy to help remove it from the market. It's not fair to other collectors to allow this to circulate.
I appreciate the interest!