Options
1959-D Lincoln Cent with wheat reverse to be auctioned next month
DCW
Posts: 6,976 ✭✭✭✭✭
Here is the Coin World article:
https://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/2019/05/controversial-1959-d-cent-mule-heads-to-auction.all.html
What is the general consensus? Excellent counterfeit or modern rarity?
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
0
Comments
In my opinion, it is not genuine.
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
Is it real or is it the best counterfeit cent ever made???????????
Surprised the feds haven't seized it, "not an official issue," etc. The thing is either genuine or one of the highest quality fakes of all time. Either way significant.
Guessing this is being sold raw as even NNC woundn't slab it?
This thing probably has a lot of frequent flyer miles from trips to EVERY grading service.
I understand the coin wasn't "officially issued," but the article states that both the Secret Service and the Dept of the Treasury examined the coin and declared it to be genuine, so (other than "because they can") I don't see any rational reason why the government would seize the coin.
IMO, this coin is for the collector or dealer with money to burn who wants a cool conversation piece.
ANA LM
USAF Retired — 34 years of active military service! 🇺🇸
I will probably get fragged for thinking this, let alone saying it out in public...Dan Carr "wanna be" fantasy piece? I realize the article has a "discovered" date back in 1986, but several sources have gave this "coin" a clean bill of health...except the major TPGers who will not certify it. Interesting piece, but, I would not even consider bidding on it, even if I could afford it, unless PCGS certifies it.
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore...
I have been advised that the "mule" seen is DC was a 1959-P and not this coin. The story on that coin is below:
This again. If this is the only "mule" in existence, then I'm intimately familiar with it.
Let me tell you all the story of the 1959 mule cent I handled. While an authenticator at ANACS, we received a 1959 cent for authentication. No big deal. Dealers would often send "nothing coins" as a corroded 1907 Indian cent because they had a $100 bet on whether it was genuine or not. Non-collectors would send in their damaged "pocket change" too. I was the first authenticator on the coin. Nothing caught my eye. It was a NORMAL 1959 cent to me. It got past Hoskins also and I believe we both wondered who would waste money sending this in. This type of submission is still typical at every TPGS I've worked at." We received almost a dozen coins last week worth less than a dime that the submitter paid $12 for each. Pays the light bill.
The 1959 cent was sent out as genuine and given a photo certificate. About a week later Hoskins received a call from a reporter (in Georgia?) about the coin. He wanted to know how many we'd seen. Basically we told him possibly hundreds in pocket change. He replied, "with a wheat back reverse?" Oops!
Hoskins asked for the coin to be sent back with the cert. of authenticity so we could check it again. We got the coin but not the certificate. The coin went to the Mint Lab, was put on an optical comparator scope and determined to be a struck counterfeit. It's design was slightly "off" from the genuine 1959 cent it was compared with. We returned it as a counterfeit.
Apparently it was eventually sent to the Secret Service and it was returned with a letter of authenticity. However, Mark Hoffman has claimed to be the counterfeiter who made it. Did the counterfeiter only strike one coin?
All I will say in my defense is today I am much more knowledgeable and vigilant than I was then, Over the ensuing decades, I have not had a chance to examine it again but about two years ago, a potential buyer sent a packet of papers and research on the coin and wanted ICG to certify it because the other services had all been "no decision." I told him we would need to see the coin - it never came.
Look, it is very possible the coin is genuine as similar things have happened. Until it is slabbed, it will be an interesting piece of numismatic history that remains in Limbo. The fact that a certificate of authenticity is floating around is half my fault!
I too have seen it, and I too do not think it is genuine. However, like others, I cannot say why it is not genuine.
TD
It doesn't 'smell' right visually,
and I don't like the inside of the
rims. .
I've examined a few times, like others,
and I do not consider it close to genuine.
A darn good counterfeit, I'd agree.
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
From what I understand Mark Hoffman never rescinded his claim to have made the cent. He is currently serving in prison in Utah for murder.
This cent appears to kick around in Goldberg auctions every few years. Why anyone with the kind of money spent on this highly questionable piece spend that kind of money on something that no TPG will touch is beyond me.
It is not to be confused with the 1959 no mint mark wheatback cent erroneously certified as genuine by ANACS while it was in Washington, D.C. I saw that piece at Coin World, and I believed that piece to be an altered date.
TD
The project files are at Philadelphia:
E-619 U.S. One Cent Reverse 1958-1959 .5 in. Correspondence, memos, and photographs pertaining to the design of the Lincoln Memorial design one-cent coin. Arranged in reverse chronological order. G-12-08-01-1; Box 57.
From the OP photo only, I do not like the obverse portrait detail - but that could be lighting, also.
I agree something is not right with it. I wonder why only one has surfaced and not a few more on top of that. just wondering is all
That means (according to another professional authenticator) there are at least two 1959 mules. a 1959-P and this coin a 1959-D. I will edit my post above as I only saw one coin. BTW, it was determined by all parties at the mint that the counterfeit mule (whatever its mint) seen at ANACS (in DC) that we "missed" the first time around was a die struck counterfeit.
And, in 99.89% of the time, 'Special Error Coins' that are made at
any of the US Mints in the past 75+++ years are simply NOT found
in circulation, like this piece was, reportedly.
I've bought my share of "SI"'s ('special issues')over the past 48 years,
and I have a good idea of how they get out, where they are kept or
sold, etc., and this coin AND the story of how it was found is not close
to what I would expect if the coin was made IN the Mint.
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
I looked up the negative still filed in the basement of ANA Headquarters, and it is a no mint mark coin.
Edited to add: For the convenience of anybody that wishes to verify this negative, there is a file cabinet in the basement of ANA Headquarters with large brown envelopes that were generated when certain unusual coins came in. The envelopes contain various notes such as die characteristics, references, consultant notes, whatever. Typically the coin's ANACS number(s) will be found on or in the envelope. These envelopes are filed in standard Redbook order, i.e. Half Cents by date, Cents by date and mintmark, etc.
THe negatives are in different file cabinets by ANACS number order, You need to know the ANACS number to find anything in the negative file.
Thanks! Saved me some searching.
Heh, heh, looks like the buyer of the ANA's Certification Service forgot to get one of the most important assets of the company.
They were offered to the buyer (Amos Press). They did not want them.
GOOD! Lucky for all of us Amos Press did not know their true value!
Hoskins had all the negatives from INSAB. He passed without any recognition and his daughter was told no one ever heard of him (first director of their Certification Service and Summer Seminar instructor among other things) when she called Colorado Springs. They are probably lost.
I understand the coin wasn't "officially issued," but the article states that both the Secret Service and the Dept of the Treasury examined the coin and declared it to be genuine.
i would think that where this is concerned there is more "knowledge" at the various TPG's than at the Secret Service, etc.
I wonder what would happen with respect to this particular coin if it was resubmitted to the Mint and to the Treasury Dept. for a renewed examination; and if the Mint and the Treasury issued letters expressly confirming that the coin is authentic and not counterfeit?
Would these letters from Uncle Sam carry more weight in the hobby than the decisions by TPGs (privately owned US based companies) that they will not slab the coin (without explaining why they will not slab the coin)?
Or would the decisions of the TPGs carry more weight in the hobby than letters from Uncle Sam?
If persons in the know have inspected the coin and deem it not to be authentic (without being able to explain or provide a reason why they believe it is not authentic), why should their opinion carry any weight at all?
Same question if persons in the know inspected the coin and deem it to be authentic (without being able to explain or provide a reason why they believe it is authentic)?
Good point. We ran up against this in the 70's when authenticators had "back door" access to the Mint. At the time, we were the only show in town, pre-dating the second Authentication Service by a just a few years. There was not one case where the Mint authenticators disagreed with our opinion and after 1972, we were the first to alert them of the new counterfeits as soon as they were discovered. If we were not 100% sure of our opinion, we used the "no decision" option often after researching a coin for several months!
Here is the answer to your question: The Mint authenticators always had the FINAL WORD! If they think a coin is genuine, you got it back. If They decide the coin is a counterfeit, you don't get it back.
Unfortunately, they have made mistakes and confiscated genuine coins.
IMO, the "modern" TPGS have taken the proper stance. If you are unable to PROVE your opinion in a court of law, a
"no decision" is best.
Insider brought up proving your opinion in a court of law.
The owner of this coin could file a lawsuit against Uncle Sam and all persons known and unknown who claim an interest in this coin adverse to the owner for quite title (declaring the Plaintiff owns the coin free and clear of any interest of the defendants therein) and for declaratory relief (declaring that the coin is authentic and not counterfeit).
Uncle Sam may just decide to agree with the Plaintiff.
Obtaining such a court judgment would provide the owner with tangible and concrete proof of ownership and proof of authenticity. Once any such judgment was filed and became final maybe then TPGs would grade and slab the coin.
In that event Lincoln cent collectors would have a new, instant rarity to pursue.
Just because something is in a holder, doesn't mean you have to agree to it's authenticity.
I have seen many coins in both our hosts holders, and in other holders in which the coin was not genuine while being authenticated by graders.
Die polish lines look pretty similar to a real one.
I thought this was seized a long time ago from the owner?
At least it looks like the US considers it real. This auction will be a test of US government authentication vs. TPG authentication.
Interesting. Is there any reason to disbelieve this claim?
Should we call this the Hoffman cent?
Here's some info on Mark Hoffman. Anyone know what rare mint mark dime he forged? Is that coin known with his provenance?
Here's the 2010 Goldberg auction. It's interesting that they don't mention the Hoffman counterfeit claim.
Here's a short excerpt:
I don't know if McDrew was the person who wrote a letter I
saw decades ago, but the letter was signed by a Treasury
Official from the BEP, not the Mint. If anyone has the McDrew
letter, I'd be interested to see his title on the letterhead, or
below his signature.
The Treasury confiscated not only decided to seize the
counterfeit 1969-P Doubled Die Cents, but also seized and
destroyed genuine 1969-S DD Cents, that they also condemned as
counterfeit, but were genuine major doubled die cents.
I've examined the coin, and I don't like the surfaces or overall
'look' of the coin. It just doesn't smell right visually. I don't know if
Hoffman made it, but it's certainly a distinct possibility.
Copper planchets for pre-82 cents are very very common, so
the fact that it weighs correctly, and has the right composition,
means nothing. The rims of this coin are also very sharp; yes,
the sharper rims could be from a special die-set up, but look
closely at the photos Zions posted - the coin, as I recall it, is
somewhat darker than in the photo, but even the Wheat Rev.
looks 'off' imo.
Coins like this are not found in circulation 27 years after
they were struck. I've bought my share of things that were made
on purpose at the Mints, and none of them were sourced anywhere
near a situation like this. (if it were documented that it was found
in downtown Denver in the early 60's, that would be more believable)
If one, or more, were struck on purpose, it would not have ended
up Northern Calif. in pocket change 27 years later. It would have
been put away, or given to a special friend/family member, and
not be put into circulation almost three decades later.
IMO, as as I've stated before, the coin is not genuine.
Fred
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
Please alert us to what they were and if the slab was authentic. DID YOU BOTHER TO CONTACT PCGS avout what you think you saw?
Probably a 16-D dime.
While there's no reason to disbelieve his claim, there's also no reason to believe it either. He was a con man and convicted liar, after all.
What are the possible options here?
What is the likelihood of each?
Check out my iPhone app SlabReader!
@mach1ne asked: "What are the possible options here?"
Goldberg’s has an interesting disclaimer at the bottom of the description in bold which doesn’t appear on other lots.
The property is not guaranteed to be authentic, and is marketable as is, and can not be returned.
I mostly agree with you. But, if we grant #4, isn't it at least possible that it was accidentally created. Isn't it at least possible that a Mint worker accidentally put in an old reverse die, caught it early and rounded up the strikes but missed one that got out into circulation?
[Disclaimer: I stay away from all of these items because I think even many of the "genuine" articles are Mint workers playing around at work.]
Stupid me taking what I consider obvious things for granted. I need to think deeply into these questions and post all the possibilities such as for #4 was it made during the day or night.
To my mind, given these choices, "Mint worker created it" covers on purpose or accidentally making it. Therefore, a genuine coin struck using genuine dies.
Hope you will agree totally now.
thanks everyone for contributions to a real interesting thread
Am I the only one who has seen both the P and the D? Skip?
I've only seen the D Mint.
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
I never saw the 1959-D AND until this auction, I never knew it existed UNLESS the fellow who tried to get us to authenticate it sent the packet of info about THIS coin from Denver and I didn't realize at that time that more than one mule existed. I suspect the guys at across the street have seen both. Call Rick or Lange and ask.
I have only examined the "P" as the other coin (whatever its Mint) was not sent in.
I like the discussion taking place in this thread, for multiple reasons.
The coin pictured in this thread is very interesting.
What is more interesting is the variety of opinions about whether this coin is authentic or counterfeit; and the issue of who should have the final say on whether the coin is authentic or counterfeit.
Should the executive branch of government (the Mint of the Treasury Dept.), a TPG (a private sector business), an expert (i.e. Fred W.), or the court system (a final court judgment after a jury trial or a court trial), or someone else have the final say?
What is the rational for having any of the above have the final say. Is one more worthy than the other?
In our country, its framework (the Constitution) provides for 3 separate but equal branches of government. Thanks to Marbuy v. Madison the judicial branch is more equal than the executive and legislative branches because the judicial branch has the final say. This set up has worked well for over 200 years.
So IMO a court judgment, after a trial, determining whether this coin is authentic or counterfeit is the way optimal and most legitimate way to get the "final say" on this coin from an arbiter whose bonafides are the least likely to be challenged.
This worked for the Langbord double eagles. After the Supreme Court declined to take that case there has been no one that denies the ten double eagles are owned by Uncle Sam.
So if you were given an opportunity to own the 1959 D cent pictured in this thread, would you want to own it? If you say no, would your answer change if there was a court judgment on file that says the coin is authentic?
It's only my opinion, but given that the coin after
two decades is still not certified, I would still say
that none of the 4 TPGS' would certify this coin
as genuine, even if there were a court judgement
that says the coin is authentic.
The court can certainly make that determination,
should it go there, but the court cannot force a
TPGS to certify/authenticate it. I certainly would
strongly take the position, to PCGS, that they not
certify it as genuine.
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
Curious that there do not seem to be any modern physical test results, or specifications, or high resolution images of the piece in question. Any owner or potential buyer would be "nutz" to accept the piece as-is.
Further, there is not one reference to the project file and related data in NARA.
In other words, it's the same old routing of "applied ignorance" we see over and over again. Please get some real science into the mix !
Fascinating topic. But also a bit troubling. The feds say its real but (almost) no one else does....
And remember, the Treasury at first declared that the Henning "no P" 1944 nickels were genuine.
Almost makes one think that the gov't might not always be right.
PS: Here's some additional source material that is publicly available. I've consolidated it from the three finding aids. It is in addition to the files I posted above. This is in NARA at Philadelphia. No one can guarantee anything meaningful will be found even after search every scrap of paper in these boxes. But, that is part of meaningful research.
They did?
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
That is my understanding....
I suspect #2, although I have never seen the coin in person, nor have I ever seen a picture of the edge.
If it is indeed a "sandwich" job, one test that would reveal that would be the pitch (resonant frequency) at which it rings when tapped on the edge.