@RogerB said:
....the flip side is that if it can't be show to be real -- or fake -- the investment is gone. Maybe that works for those set up as corporations or foundation owners, but doubtful of others considering it.
You never know till you try. Maybe reach out to Goldbergs?
One interesting thing could be to create a website for a numismatic research service and a list of open research projects waiting for funding along with taking custom requests?
Maybe you can post your research, results and progress on YouTube and make some money off ads as well? There's lots of coin videos on YouTube now.
Sounds like I need to hire a digital marketing assistant. Now, where can I find one who'll work for those stale peanuts in the pantry and a hunk of 20-year old imitation parmesan cheese?
@RogerB said:
....the flip side is that if it can't be show to be real -- or fake -- the investment is gone. Maybe that works for those set up as corporations or foundation owners, but doubtful of others considering it.
You never know till you try. Maybe reach out to Goldbergs?
One interesting thing could be to create a website for a numismatic research service and a list of open research projects waiting for funding along with taking custom requests?
Maybe you can post your research, results and progress on YouTube and make some money off ads as well? There's lots of coin videos on YouTube now.
Sounds like I need to hire a digital marketing assistant. Now, where can I find one who'll work for those stale peanuts in the pantry and a hunk of 20-year old imitation parmesan cheese?
Is that what you pay people who transcribe old documents for you? If so, the answer may be right here
@CaptainBlunt said:
I remember JJ Ford Jr. “hired” me to do some research on a very rare medal he owned. I went to the Archives that held the appropriate records but failed to find what he was seeking. The records in question were not complete not every piece of paper survives 150 years. When I told him this he declined to pay me for my time and effort. Not a dime.
Unfortunately, this is far too typical a response from people in the "coin business." I've had similar experiences after presenting a nice report with data and conclusions. They don't like the result and then "vanish."
@kbbpll said:
I see pretty strong evidence that the obverse is from a real die.
What are the possibilities?
1. I'm wrong. They're not the same.
2. Die transfer pre-1987 was good enough to produce something this exact.
3. It really is a "mule".
4. Something else.
I've been looking around for a match for the reverse but so far nothing in 1958-D, but it could be any year and a long search. There are also 1958-D cents struck on dimes, quarters struck on cents, halves struck on cents. Seems like a lot of mint sport was going on.
It is interesting that the die polish lines run in the same general direction, as might occur if the same press operator reached in with the same right or left hand to clean up a die, but the lines are different from one die to the other. Not the same die.
TD
Yes, there are differences, but angle, lighting, and slight rotation of coin between images means that one line can be emphasized or disappear from one image to the next. I have highlighted a dozen areas where the lines appear to be identical. Particularly the obvious one from the upper inside left of the Y to Lincoln's hair, a short one going NE from the first 9 in the date, and the one going NE from the upper left corner of the E. I have trouble believing that so many identical features are shared, particularly with the assertion that the "mule" is an outright forgery. It's easier for me to think that it's a very good die transfer, or (shudder) "real".
I repeat, these are not from the same dies. Period. Besides the obvious difference in the lines coming off the tops of the Y's, note the different mint mark positions relative to the bottoms of the 5's.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@RogerB said:
....the flip side is that if it can't be show to be real -- or fake -- the investment is gone. Maybe that works for those set up as corporations or foundation owners, but doubtful of others considering it.
You never know till you try. Maybe reach out to Goldbergs?
One interesting thing could be to create a website for a numismatic research service and a list of open research projects waiting for funding along with taking custom requests?
Maybe you can post your research, results and progress on YouTube and make some money off ads as well? There's lots of coin videos on YouTube now.
Sounds like I need to hire a digital marketing assistant. Now, where can I find one who'll work for those stale peanuts in the pantry and a hunk of 20-year old imitation parmesan cheese?
Is that what you pay people who transcribe old documents for you? If so, the answer may be right here
Volunteers who do transcriptions get paid in "Thank Yous" and seeing their work occasionally posted or used in an article. Once a transcription is completed and linked to the original, I remove all trace of the volunteer, so results are anonymous.
@CaptHenway said: "I repeat, these are not from the same dies. Period. Besides the obvious difference in the lines coming off the tops of the Y's, note the different mint mark positions relative to the bottoms of the 5's."
They "look" close enough. If you are wrong, it may be due to the lighting.
@SanctionII said:
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.
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?
The micro-O Morgans come to mind (1896, 1900, 1901, 1902, I believe).
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
@SanctionII said:
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.
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?
The micro-O Morgans come to mind (1896, 1900, 1901, 1902, I believe).
You got me - old news and they only count as four. I NEVER called any of them genuine! However, when Micheal Fey sent me several low grade examples to examine that were in TPGS slabs, I could not prove to his satisfaction that my opinion - die struck fakes - was correct. Previously, the first I ever saw was sent to PCI for a "Signature" label. It was Uncirculated and I called it counterfeit. Years before some 1896-P's were condemned (see ANA Reprint) and the 1896-O "micro O" was just as crude under my scope.
Here is the thing to remember as I'm defending all the professional authenticators'. Every so often, the fakers take a big leap forward and produce something that goes undetected - for awhile. Thankfully, there are thousands of trained "eyes" in the collecting community that keep an eye on us. The "Micro O's" came along at a time when authentication was in its infancy. They were bought/sold/published before the TPGS were even around. I've been at this since 1972 and believe it or not, I never saw a "Micro O" of any date except for 1880 before 1993 or 1994. I didn't collect Morgans.
I'll guarantee you that if someone would have shown me an 1896-O "Micro O" in any condition below VF at any time in my career before 1994, even with a stereo scope I would have probably called it genuine! So did the other authenticators' and Morgan dollar experts for all those years. As I wrote, I got lucky. My first contact was with an "across-the-room" counterfeit in BU condition. When I joined the ATS, I got them to stop authenticating the pieces.
Sometime later, PCGS did some excellent research along with dollar experts and many previously genuine dollars from various dates were determined to be counterfeits. See VAM World.
If I was Roy Langboard, I would throw a tantrum. No 1959-D were officially issued under the law. That should settle the issue if all are treated equally under the law.
I agree with those saying that the item is not authentic. Wasn't there someone in prison that acknowledged counterfeiting these?
@cameonut2011 said:
If I was Roy Langboard, I would throw a tantrum. No 1959-D were officially issued under the law. That should settle the issue if all are treated equally under the law.
I agree with those saying that the item is not authentic. Wasn't there someone in prison that acknowledged counterfeiting these?
Hoffman. I could believe him until he said it was done using spark erosion dies.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@cameonut2011 said:
If I was Roy Langboard, I would throw a tantrum. No 1959-D were officially issued under the law. That should settle the issue if all are treated equally under the law.
I agree with those saying that the item is not authentic. Wasn't there someone in prison that acknowledged counterfeiting these?
Not true. Millions of 1959-D were officially issued under the law - just none with a wheat cent back. But an accidental mule - if that's what it is - is far different from a coin that was BANNED from release.
UPDATE: I just checked my files and found that in 2017 we were contacted by a collector who was offered THIS 1959-D 1c mule through a third party acting for the owner. He wanted to send me the coin to authenticate since he knew I had seen one before. We got the paperwork (including a very detailed report from the Secret Service Counterfeit Division with magnified images and composition analysis) but not the coin as the owner would not turn the coin loose. The coin has been authenticated by the government so it is considered to be genuine.
Additionally, one of the images has:
ANA-G-7506-G and INS-4755-F
I suspect that both these Authentication Services saw this coin BEFORE 1986. I cannot confirm it was ever seen at PCGS or NGC.
So Hoffman is the salamander letter guy. I wonder if the cops searched his belongings for evidence of Lincoln coinage forgery. Very interesting subject. Peace Roy
@Insider2 said: UPDATE: I just checked my files and found that in 2017 we were contacted by a collector who was offered THIS 1959-D 1c mule through a third party acting for the owner. He wanted to send me the coin to authenticate since he knew I had seen one before. We got the paperwork (including a very detailed report from the Secret Service Counterfeit Division with magnified images and composition analysis) but not the coin as the owner would not turn the coin loose. The coin has been authenticated by the government so it is considered to be genuine.
Additionally, one of the images has:
ANA-G-7506-G and INS-4755-F
I suspect that both these Authentication Services saw this coin BEFORE 1986. I cannot confirm it was ever seen at PCGS or NGC.
I did not see it then. When I left ANACS in the Summer of 1984 we were still using the F- prefix. Can't remember the suffix we were using but I know it was a long way from -Z. The G-xxxx-G block could have been 1986. Check with the paper certificate collectors to see if they can match it up to a date on a certificate.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
If the U.S. Mint strikes a coin, and the government determines that indeed, the mint did strike it, who are we to argue? There is enough paperwork with this coin showing the results of their examination that I can't prove otherwise.
I would guess that if this coin was destined for third party grading, it would have been slabbed already.
Pete Rose will be in the Hall of Fame before that happens.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
I looked at the coin today. I agree that it is not genuine. It is die struck from fake dies on a regular blank pre-1982 planchet. There are numerous heavy die lines on both sides which are not the typical “roughness” for coins of this era. The die lines are too heavy. That is not proof, but it is just too easy to make fake dies of these designs and strike them.
@giantsfan20 said:
The known history of this unique cent begins in 1986. A retired police officer named Leon Baller advertised in his local Walnut Creek, California newspaper that he would purchase rare and unusual coins. A local coin collector saw the ad and contacted Baller about an unusual 1959-D wheat reverse cent that he had found, and Baller soon arranged to meet with him and then purchased the coin for ****$1,500. ***
That has got to be the buy of the century for a coin that unique and to be sold for such a low amount. Bet the seller has sellers remorse for selling to cheap.
Baller's 1986 purchase for $1500 smells fishy to me. What so-called coin collector would be willing to pay $1500 for a common Lincoln that is 100,000,000X more likely to be a fake than real? I know I never would have back in 1986. And if the seller felt this coin were "rare and unusual" (if not unique)...why dump it for $1500? How many of those comic book full page ads from the 1960's offering to pay a "$10,000 reward" for an 1804 silver dollar ever turned one up? The Waltons had a potentially rare and unusual 1913 Lib nickel...and were told by higher authority it was fake. Good thing they didn't dump that for $1500 to Mr. Baller.
Heritage might pay $1500 for such a coin in the wild due to their numismatic expertise. But some Joe Collector paying $1500 on a Millions to 1 Moon shot? I don't think so. The posted "ad" almost sounds like a set-up to "discover" the coin. That would fit with Fred's experiences too.
Mark Hoffman may be a liar, thief, cheater, counterfeiter and murderer, but his works fooled a lot of people for a lot of years.
I used to be somebody, now I'm just a coin collector. Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
@roadrunner said:
Baller's 1986 purchase for $1500 smells fishy to me.
Buying it for $1500 doesn't seem all that risky or unreasonable. Lots for people spend more on scratch-off tickets, with nothing in hand when the drawing is over!
@roadrunner said:
Baller's 1986 purchase for $1500 smells fishy to me.
Buying it for $1500 doesn't seem all that risky or unreasonable. Lots for people spend more on scratch-off tickets, with nothing in hand when the drawing is over!
@EagleEye said:
I looked at the coin today. I agree that it is not genuine. It is die struck from fake dies on a regular blank pre-1982 planchet. There are numerous heavy die lines on both sides which are not the typical “roughness” for coins of this era. The die lines are too heavy. That is not proof, but it is just too easy to make fake dies of these designs and strike them.
@EagleEye said:
I looked at the coin today. I agree that it is not genuine. It is die struck from fake dies on a regular blank pre-1982 planchet. There are numerous heavy die lines on both sides which are not the typical “roughness” for coins of this era. The die lines are too heavy. That is not proof, but it is just too easy to make fake dies of these designs and strike them.
Rick, based on what you and Fred have posted, it sounds as if it was a fairly easy call for the two of you to opine that the coin is a counterfeit. Can you think of a reasonable basis upon which the Secret Service felt otherwise?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@EagleEye said:
I looked at the coin today. I agree that it is not genuine. It is die struck from fake dies on a regular blank pre-1982 planchet. There are numerous heavy die lines on both sides which are not the typical “roughness” for coins of this era. The die lines are too heavy. That is not proof, but it is just too easy to make fake dies of these designs and strike them.
Rick, based on what you and Fred have posted, it sounds as if it was a fairly easy call for the two of you to opine that the coin is a counterfeit. Can you think of a reasonable basis upon which the Secret Service felt otherwise?
Secret Service probably had a lack of numismatic experience. They probably just weighed it, and maybe did an X-ray spectroscopy. They are more attuned to threats to the currency, not fake collectibles.
@EagleEye said:
I looked at the coin today. I agree that it is not genuine. It is die struck from fake dies on a regular blank pre-1982 planchet. There are numerous heavy die lines on both sides which are not the typical “roughness” for coins of this era. The die lines are too heavy. That is not proof, but it is just too easy to make fake dies of these designs and strike them.
Rick, based on what you and Fred have posted, it sounds as if it was a fairly easy call for the two of you to opine that the coin is a counterfeit. Can you think of a reasonable basis upon which the Secret Service felt otherwise?
Secret Service probably had a lack of numismatic experience. They probably just weighed it, and maybe did an X-ray spectroscopy. They are more attuned to threats to the currency, not fake collectibles.
In the 1970's - 1980's the relationship between Treasury Mint Lab (their authenticators) and the Secret Service was strained. Secret Service agents brought coins for us to authenticate on many occasions because they received an answer in several seconds rather than much longer. We learned that within a few months of the start of the ANA's Certification Service the work load at the Mint Lab was greatly reduced.
I assume the Treasury Lab was impressed with the
planchet - which means nothing, as Pre-83 copper
cent T. 2 Planchets are, and were, easily available.
They were probably not experienced, as Rick said,
in determining a good struck counterfeit. Odds are
they had never previously seen, or identified, a
counterfeit like this.
As I mentioned earlier, and Rick said above,
the surfaces just don't look right under a mag.
glass, or even seeing it 'raw'....and the rims are not
correct, imo.
As to the Hoffman question - I don't think anyone
knows for sure, but it's certainly not out of the question.
Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors for PCGS. A 50+ Year PNG Member.A full-time numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022.
@roadrunner said:
Baller's 1986 purchase for $1500 smells fishy to me.
Buying it for $1500 doesn't seem all that risky or unreasonable. Lots for people spend more on scratch-off tickets, with nothing in hand when the drawing is over!
But at least with a scratch ticket your odds of winning are pretty well known....same for a horse race. If anyone non-expert can chime in here that did indeed spend $1500 on an R8....1 in 100,000,000 coin shot that they were "hoping" was real please do so. Much different than Fred, Rick, or Heritage taking a shot based on their gut feels and decades of experience. Someone wins the Powerball lottery all the time....and far more often than finding an authentic 1943 copper cent or a genuine 1959 wheatie mule.
@EagleEye said:
I looked at the coin today. I agree that it is not genuine. It is die struck from fake dies on a regular blank pre-1982 planchet. There are numerous heavy die lines on both sides which are not the typical “roughness” for coins of this era. The die lines are too heavy. That is not proof, but it is just too easy to make fake dies of these designs and strike them.
Rick, based on what you and Fred have posted, it sounds as if it was a fairly easy call for the two of you to opine that the coin is a counterfeit. Can you think of a reasonable basis upon which the Secret Service felt otherwise?
Somewhere in the early 1980's I was teaching the Counterfeit Detection Course at the ANA Summer Seminar, and I had as a student a U.S. Secret Service agent. I asked him why he was there, and he said that the Service wanted to have at lease one agent who know something about counterfeit coins, because their main interest was counterfeit paper money. He said that whenever they had an issue with the authenticity of a coin, they had to send it to the Mint Lab, and it sometimes took months to get an answer back. In other words, the Secret Service could not authenticate coins, and the Mint (Treasury Dept.) couldn't be bothered to.
Under the circumstances, it is not hard to see why the Secret Service at that time was reluctant to prosecute counterfeit and/or altered coin cases. At least they sent an agent to learn something about the subject. Whether or not that agent is still there I have no idea.
Then somewhere in the late 20-aught's a postal inspector from the Chicago Main Post Office walked into Harlan J. Berk's store and asked if anybody there could tell them if a coin was authentic. I told the man that this was his lucky day, and what did he want to know? He had a coin with him that some postal patron had gotten via mail order, been told by a third party that it was a counterfeit, and had had trouble returning.
The Inspector said that S.O.P. was to send it to the U.S. Mint, but he knew from past experience that it would take several months to get an answer back, and he figured that by then the seller would have disappeared. I gave him my card and told him my credentials as an authenticator, told him that the coin was indeed a counterfeit, and wrote him a brief note to that effect on HJB letterhead. I also offered to help him on any similar case in the future, but I never saw him again.
Finally, there is the case of the so-called 1977/6 cent. The coin came into Coin World while I was there, and I tried to prove it fake but could not. I still had some doubts, so we got the owner's permission to send it to the Mint and the Director of the Mint's personal promise that the coin would be returned whether good or bad. We photographed the hell out of the coin, developed the film to make sure we had pictures, and sent it off to the Director's Office. I wrote up a story and waited.
Three days later the head of the Mint Lab called from the Director's office and said that the coin was good. We were putting the paper together that day so we blasted it across the front page. Fred Weinberg got his First Class Mail edition two days later, before anybody else did, called me to ask if the story was true, and after I said yes, the Mint Lab confirmed it, he posted a BUY message on the teletype system at $100. The network sizzled.
Then the next day the Director called and apologetically told our Editor that the #2 man in the Mint Lab had come back from a trip, looked at the coin and overruled his boss. Now it was an alteration, not an overdate. Oh, and by the way, they would not be returning the coin.
So, in my humble opinion, the Mint's opinion on a coin's authenticity does not mean squat!
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@roadrunner said:
Baller's 1986 purchase for $1500 smells fishy to me.
Buying it for $1500 doesn't seem all that risky or unreasonable. Lots for people spend more on scratch-off tickets, with nothing in hand when the drawing is over!
But at least with a scratch ticket your odds of winning are pretty well known....same for a horse race. If anyone non-expert can chime in here that did indeed spend $1500 on an R8....1 in 100,000,000 coin shot that they were "hoping" was real please do so. Much different than Fred, Rick, or Heritage taking a shot based on their gut feels and decades of experience. Someone wins the Powerball lottery all the time....and far more often than finding an authentic 1943 copper cent or a genuine 1959 wheatie mule.
It is far LESS likely that Fred or Rick or Heritage would take a flyer. It is the barely informed that are more likely to make such a leap. I see it all the time at country auctions where almost sell SVDB are fake, often obvious, yet they go for over sheet 90% of the time. I once saw the same fake $3 gold sell THREE TIMES before someone failed to return it.
@EagleEye said:
I looked at the coin today. I agree that it is not genuine. It is die struck from fake dies on a regular blank pre-1982 planchet. There are numerous heavy die lines on both sides which are not the typical “roughness” for coins of this era. The die lines are too heavy. That is not proof, but it is just too easy to make fake dies of these designs and strike them.
Rick, based on what you and Fred have posted, it sounds as if it was a fairly easy call for the two of you to opine that the coin is a counterfeit. Can you think of a reasonable basis upon which the Secret Service felt otherwise?
Somewhere in the early 1980's I was teaching the Counterfeit Detection Course at the ANA Summer Seminar, and I had as a student a U.S. Secret Service agent. I asked him why he was there, and he said that the Service wanted to have at lease one agent who know something about counterfeit coins, because their main interest was counterfeit paper money. He said that whenever they had an issue with the authenticity of a coin, they had to send it to the Mint Lab, and it sometimes took months to get an answer back. In other words, the Secret Service could not authenticate coins, and the Mint (Treasury Dept.) couldn't be bothered to.
Under the circumstances, it is not hard to see why the Secret Service at that time was reluctant to prosecute counterfeit and/or altered coin cases. At least they sent an agent to learn something about the subject. Whether or not that agent is still there I have no idea.
Then somewhere in the late 20-aught's a postal inspector from the Chicago Main Post Office walked into Harlan J. Berk's store and asked if anybody there could tell them if a coin was authentic. I told the man that this was his lucky day, and what did he want to know? He had a coin with him that some postal patron had gotten via mail order, been told by a third party that it was a counterfeit, and had had trouble returning.
The Inspector said that S.O.P. was to send it to the U.S. Mint, but he knew from past experience that it would take several months to get an answer back, and he figured that by then the seller would have disappeared. I gave him my card and told him my credentials as an authenticator, told him that the coin was indeed a counterfeit, and wrote him a brief note to that effect on HJB letterhead. I also offered to help him on any similar case in the future, but I never saw him again.
Finally, there is the case of the so-called 1977/6 cent. The coin came into Coin World while I was there, and I tried to prove it fake but could not. I still had some doubts, so we got the owner's permission to send it to the Mint and the Director of the Mint's personal promise that the coin would be returned whether good or bad. We photographed the hell out of the coin, developed the film to make sure we had pictures, and sent it off to the Director's Office. I wrote up a story and waited.
Three days later the head of the Mint Lab called from the Director's office and said that the coin was good. We were putting the paper together that day so we blasted it across the front page. Fred Weinberg got his First Class Mail edition two days later, before anybody else did, called me to ask if the story was true, and after I said yes, the Mint Lab confirmed it, he posted a BUY message on the teletype system at $100. The network sizzled.
Then the next day the Director called and apologetically told our Editor that the #2 man in the Mint Lab had come back from a trip, looked at the coin and overruled his boss. Now it was an alteration, not an overdate. Oh, and by the way, they would not be returning the coin.
So, in my humble opinion, the Mint's opinion on a coin's authenticity does not mean squat!
TD
Thank you for an excellent read!
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Comments
Sounds like I need to hire a digital marketing assistant. Now, where can I find one who'll work for those stale peanuts in the pantry and a hunk of 20-year old imitation parmesan cheese?
Is that what you pay people who transcribe old documents for you? If so, the answer may be right here
Unfortunately, this is far too typical a response from people in the "coin business." I've had similar experiences after presenting a nice report with data and conclusions. They don't like the result and then "vanish."
I repeat, these are not from the same dies. Period. Besides the obvious difference in the lines coming off the tops of the Y's, note the different mint mark positions relative to the bottoms of the 5's.
Volunteers who do transcriptions get paid in "Thank Yous" and seeing their work occasionally posted or used in an article. Once a transcription is completed and linked to the original, I remove all trace of the volunteer, so results are anonymous.
Thanks. IMO, neither the 1959-P "mule" (I examined) nor the 1959-D "mule" here was struck by dies made by a spark erosion process!
@CaptHenway said: "I repeat, these are not from the same dies. Period. Besides the obvious difference in the lines coming off the tops of the Y's, note the different mint mark positions relative to the bottoms of the 5's."
They "look" close enough. If you are wrong, it may be due to the lighting.
The micro-O Morgans come to mind (1896, 1900, 1901, 1902, I believe).
The letter 'E' in 'WE' looks to be a bit further from the rim than the rest of the letters in the motto. Doesn't it ?
Interesting thread it would be a cool piece to have
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/quarters/washington-quarters-major-sets/washington-quarters-date-set-circulation-strikes-1932-present/publishedset/209923
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/quarters/washington-quarters-major-sets/washington-quarters-date-set-circulation-strikes-1932-present/album/209923
You got me - old news and they only count as four. I NEVER called any of them genuine!
However, when Micheal Fey sent me several low grade examples to examine that were in TPGS slabs, I could not prove to his satisfaction that my opinion - die struck fakes - was correct. Previously, the first I ever saw was sent to PCI for a "Signature" label. It was Uncirculated and I called it counterfeit. Years before some 1896-P's were condemned (see ANA Reprint) and the 1896-O "micro O" was just as crude under my scope.
Here is the thing to remember as I'm defending all the professional authenticators'. Every so often, the fakers take a big leap forward and produce something that goes undetected - for awhile. Thankfully, there are thousands of trained "eyes" in the collecting community that keep an eye on us. The "Micro O's" came along at a time when authentication was in its infancy. They were bought/sold/published before the TPGS were even around. I've been at this since 1972 and believe it or not, I never saw a "Micro O" of any date except for 1880 before 1993 or 1994. I didn't collect Morgans.
I'll guarantee you that if someone would have shown me an 1896-O "Micro O" in any condition below VF at any time in my career before 1994, even with a stereo scope I would have probably called it genuine! So did the other authenticators' and Morgan dollar experts for all those years. As I wrote, I got lucky. My first contact was with an "across-the-room" counterfeit in BU condition. When I joined the ATS, I got them to stop authenticating the pieces.
Sometime later, PCGS did some excellent research along with dollar experts and many previously genuine dollars from various dates were determined to be counterfeits. See VAM World.
If I was Roy Langboard, I would throw a tantrum. No 1959-D were officially issued under the law. That should settle the issue if all are treated equally under the law.
I agree with those saying that the item is not authentic. Wasn't there someone in prison that acknowledged counterfeiting these?
Hoffman. I could believe him until he said it was done using spark erosion dies.
Agree. These are not from spark erosion dies.
Not true. Millions of 1959-D were officially issued under the law - just none with a wheat cent back. But an accidental mule - if that's what it is - is far different from a coin that was BANNED from release.
UPDATE: I just checked my files and found that in 2017 we were contacted by a collector who was offered THIS 1959-D 1c mule through a third party acting for the owner. He wanted to send me the coin to authenticate since he knew I had seen one before. We got the paperwork (including a very detailed report from the Secret Service Counterfeit Division with magnified images and composition analysis) but not the coin as the owner would not turn the coin loose.
The coin has been authenticated by the government so it is considered to be genuine.
Additionally, one of the images has:
ANA-G-7506-G and INS-4755-F
I suspect that both these Authentication Services saw this coin BEFORE 1986. I cannot confirm it was ever seen at PCGS or NGC.
So Hoffman is the salamander letter guy. I wonder if the cops searched his belongings for evidence of Lincoln coinage forgery. Very interesting subject. Peace Roy
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun, MichaelDixon, NickPatton, ProfLiz, Twobitcollector,Jesbroken oih82w8, DCW
I did not see it then. When I left ANACS in the Summer of 1984 we were still using the F- prefix. Can't remember the suffix we were using but I know it was a long way from -Z. The G-xxxx-G block could have been 1986. Check with the paper certificate collectors to see if they can match it up to a date on a certificate.
In this kind of situation, no reputable company would authenticate a coin based on someone else's paperwork.
(Now, where are all those authoritative Wally Breen letters....?)
True, but right or wrong....
If the U.S. Mint strikes a coin, and the government determines that indeed, the mint did strike it, who are we to argue? There is enough paperwork with this coin showing the results of their examination that I can't prove otherwise.
I would guess that if this coin was destined for third party grading, it would have been slabbed already.
Pete Rose will be in the Hall of Fame before that happens.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
It's the insurance not the authentication. If they had no fiduciary responsibility, they'd render an opinion.
I looked at the coin today. I agree that it is not genuine. It is die struck from fake dies on a regular blank pre-1982 planchet. There are numerous heavy die lines on both sides which are not the typical “roughness” for coins of this era. The die lines are too heavy. That is not proof, but it is just too easy to make fake dies of these designs and strike them.
Baller's 1986 purchase for $1500 smells fishy to me. What so-called coin collector would be willing to pay $1500 for a common Lincoln that is 100,000,000X more likely to be a fake than real? I know I never would have back in 1986. And if the seller felt this coin were "rare and unusual" (if not unique)...why dump it for $1500? How many of those comic book full page ads from the 1960's offering to pay a "$10,000 reward" for an 1804 silver dollar ever turned one up? The Waltons had a potentially rare and unusual 1913 Lib nickel...and were told by higher authority it was fake. Good thing they didn't dump that for $1500 to Mr. Baller.
Heritage might pay $1500 for such a coin in the wild due to their numismatic expertise. But some Joe Collector paying $1500 on a Millions to 1 Moon shot? I don't think so. The posted "ad" almost sounds like a set-up to "discover" the coin. That would fit with Fred's experiences too.
Mark Hoffman may be a liar, thief, cheater, counterfeiter and murderer, but his works fooled a lot of people for a lot of years.
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
Interesting reading, thank you all for sharing !!!
Buying it for $1500 doesn't seem all that risky or unreasonable. Lots for people spend more on scratch-off tickets, with nothing in hand when the drawing is over!
Agree. I've seen stranger purchases
Before the turn of this Century (the old days) the best counterfeiters knew more about what they were faking than the people they fooled.
BTW, I've read two books about Hoffman and the Mormon murders and fakes. Great Reads!
Is there any reason to believe this isn't a Mark Hoffman production?
Great info. Thanks Rick!
Rick, based on what you and Fred have posted, it sounds as if it was a fairly easy call for the two of you to opine that the coin is a counterfeit. Can you think of a reasonable basis upon which the Secret Service felt otherwise?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Secret Service probably had a lack of numismatic experience. They probably just weighed it, and maybe did an X-ray spectroscopy. They are more attuned to threats to the currency, not fake collectibles.
Thanks.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
In the 1970's - 1980's the relationship between Treasury Mint Lab (their authenticators) and the Secret Service was strained. Secret Service agents brought coins for us to authenticate on many occasions because they received an answer in several seconds rather than much longer. We learned that within a few months of the start of the ANA's Certification Service the work load at the Mint Lab was greatly reduced.
I assume the Treasury Lab was impressed with the
planchet - which means nothing, as Pre-83 copper
cent T. 2 Planchets are, and were, easily available.
They were probably not experienced, as Rick said,
in determining a good struck counterfeit. Odds are
they had never previously seen, or identified, a
counterfeit like this.
As I mentioned earlier, and Rick said above,
the surfaces just don't look right under a mag.
glass, or even seeing it 'raw'....and the rims are not
correct, imo.
As to the Hoffman question - I don't think anyone
knows for sure, but it's certainly not out of the question.
But at least with a scratch ticket your odds of winning are pretty well known....same for a horse race. If anyone non-expert can chime in here that did indeed spend $1500 on an R8....1 in 100,000,000 coin shot that they were "hoping" was real please do so. Much different than Fred, Rick, or Heritage taking a shot based on their gut feels and decades of experience. Someone wins the Powerball lottery all the time....and far more often than finding an authentic 1943 copper cent or a genuine 1959 wheatie mule.
Somewhere in the early 1980's I was teaching the Counterfeit Detection Course at the ANA Summer Seminar, and I had as a student a U.S. Secret Service agent. I asked him why he was there, and he said that the Service wanted to have at lease one agent who know something about counterfeit coins, because their main interest was counterfeit paper money. He said that whenever they had an issue with the authenticity of a coin, they had to send it to the Mint Lab, and it sometimes took months to get an answer back. In other words, the Secret Service could not authenticate coins, and the Mint (Treasury Dept.) couldn't be bothered to.
Under the circumstances, it is not hard to see why the Secret Service at that time was reluctant to prosecute counterfeit and/or altered coin cases. At least they sent an agent to learn something about the subject. Whether or not that agent is still there I have no idea.
Then somewhere in the late 20-aught's a postal inspector from the Chicago Main Post Office walked into Harlan J. Berk's store and asked if anybody there could tell them if a coin was authentic. I told the man that this was his lucky day, and what did he want to know? He had a coin with him that some postal patron had gotten via mail order, been told by a third party that it was a counterfeit, and had had trouble returning.
The Inspector said that S.O.P. was to send it to the U.S. Mint, but he knew from past experience that it would take several months to get an answer back, and he figured that by then the seller would have disappeared. I gave him my card and told him my credentials as an authenticator, told him that the coin was indeed a counterfeit, and wrote him a brief note to that effect on HJB letterhead. I also offered to help him on any similar case in the future, but I never saw him again.
Finally, there is the case of the so-called 1977/6 cent. The coin came into Coin World while I was there, and I tried to prove it fake but could not. I still had some doubts, so we got the owner's permission to send it to the Mint and the Director of the Mint's personal promise that the coin would be returned whether good or bad. We photographed the hell out of the coin, developed the film to make sure we had pictures, and sent it off to the Director's Office. I wrote up a story and waited.
Three days later the head of the Mint Lab called from the Director's office and said that the coin was good. We were putting the paper together that day so we blasted it across the front page. Fred Weinberg got his First Class Mail edition two days later, before anybody else did, called me to ask if the story was true, and after I said yes, the Mint Lab confirmed it, he posted a BUY message on the teletype system at $100. The network sizzled.
Then the next day the Director called and apologetically told our Editor that the #2 man in the Mint Lab had come back from a trip, looked at the coin and overruled his boss. Now it was an alteration, not an overdate. Oh, and by the way, they would not be returning the coin.
So, in my humble opinion, the Mint's opinion on a coin's authenticity does not mean squat!
TD
It is far LESS likely that Fred or Rick or Heritage would take a flyer. It is the barely informed that are more likely to make such a leap. I see it all the time at country auctions where almost sell SVDB are fake, often obvious, yet they go for over sheet 90% of the time. I once saw the same fake $3 gold sell THREE TIMES before someone failed to return it.
Now, that's one I haven't seen in a long time!
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
Thank you for an excellent read!
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.