@Insider2 said:
Wow, you are right. They still could have taken a genuine coin and slab PCGS issued and faked the entire thing.
I still refuse to believe this one slipped past.
it is known that the Chinese have made forgeries using the most modern computerized equipment ad have actually fooled our host and other TPG's with high grade Canadian coins.
Perhaps SPP and SYL might want to chime in as they, I believe, were involved in the analyses of at least one of the fakes and had the results published in the RCNA Journal.
Any info on the dates involved. I have not heard of counterfeit Canadian cents. Shows how tight the TPGS can keep a lid on authentication errors.
@Insider2 said:
Wow, you are right. They still could have taken a genuine coin and slab PCGS issued and faked the entire thing.
I still refuse to believe this one slipped past.
it is known that the Chinese have made forgeries using the most modern computerized equipment ad have actually fooled our host and other TPG's with high grade Canadian coins.
Perhaps SPP and SYL might want to chime in as they, I believe, were involved in the analyses of at least one of the fakes and had the results published in the RCNA Journal.
Any info on the dates involved. I have not heard of counterfeit Canadian cents. Shows how tight the TPGS can keep a lid on authentication errors.
I believe the discussion above is a Canadian 1891 LLSD large cent, originally graded MS64 by ICCS, with the wrong date (1892) on the holder, posted on CCF in the Canadian grading section with the title "You Vs ICCS 1891 Llsd Cent...to PCGS Or Not To PCGS...". Not sure if I should post a direct link. Someone caught that it had a wrong die pair, it was sent to our hosts and body bagged as counterfeit, returned to ICCS, and they reholdered it again as MS64 but corrected the date on the cert. It was XRF'd with the exact correct composition. There is also a Canada 1920 25 cent included in the discussion that is equally good, similarly graded authentic by ICCS, bagged by PCGS. I think both may also have been bagged by NGC. The RCNA article is mentioned on page 6. The saga on CCF spanned two years.
KbbpII
I was more thinking of the RCNA article in issue October-November 2018 on page 295.
the authors were SPP and Bosox, both Members here and CCF.
am not sure if one has to be a member to read it, but here is a link to the issue to download it. https://www.rcna.ca/cnjournal/main.php
Sorry, there is no online version for a direkt link ( I am not aware of it if there is) , except PDF.
@YQQ SPP-Ottawa posted on that CCF thread "the latest issue of the CN Journal (publication of the RCNA) has an article on this new 1891 counterfeit large cent." on 11/9/18 so I'm guessing we're talking about the same coin and article. The real "tell" on that 1891 were the lines from laser cut dies. On the coin in this thread, I'm leaning towards contemporary counterfeit meant to take advantage of the discrepancy between silver price and face value, same as the Morgans of the era. It would be interesting to know if the composition of the 1899 quarter is more in line with sterling silver like the Morgans.
They are discussing this coin on CT. Thanks to @burfle23, I learned that the Barber collectors believe it is a struck counterfeit. Members here report that this coin and slab are imaged by PCGS which means they graded a coin and slab as genuine. I have not confirmed this.
Question: What's to stop a faker from making a REPLICA of a genuine coin in a genuine PCGS slab and this is one of them? I'd need to see this exact coin/slab combo on the PCGS site to believe an error was made!
As I wrote before, this thing would possibly pass right thru the system because no one would be expecting it. Look at the coin, see the DDR, grade it and away it went!
IMHO, this coin would not pass a three-second examination under a low power (7X) stereo microscope. I have suggested to one TPGS that they start training someone to use this method on everything to develop their eye for genuine coins at a degree most professionals have never seen in their ENTIRE CAREER! As of now, at many TPGS's a scope is only pulled out occasionally when a hand lens is not sufficient (typically 2 coins a month). Mine is used on at least 97% of the coins I examine.
Generally Depending on the coin:
100% of coins get an eye exam first using incandescent light.
Next, about 97% go under the 7X-40X zoom microscope with florescent light. Then about 75% of those are viewed with 7X hand lens under incandescent light again.
OR:
100% of coins get an eye exam first using incandescent light.
Next, about 97% go under the 7X-40X zoom microscope with florescent light.
OR for for bullion:
100% of coins get an eye exam first using incandescent light.
100% of the coins examined with a 7X hand lens.
40% checked again with the scope to see what caused/how important the defect is.
We are aware of this coin and are currently investigating. There was some great discussion on this thread however it is being closed until the investigation is complete.
Comments
Any info on the dates involved. I have not heard of counterfeit Canadian cents. Shows how tight the TPGS can keep a lid on authentication errors.
Interesting subject both the discussion as well as the object......... I wondered what @HeatherBoyd would say about this.
Send it to CAC.
I'd pay the submission fee to see if CAC stickers it!
Here are the Truviews (same coin, legit holder/cert number):
I believe the discussion above is a Canadian 1891 LLSD large cent, originally graded MS64 by ICCS, with the wrong date (1892) on the holder, posted on CCF in the Canadian grading section with the title "You Vs ICCS 1891 Llsd Cent...to PCGS Or Not To PCGS...". Not sure if I should post a direct link. Someone caught that it had a wrong die pair, it was sent to our hosts and body bagged as counterfeit, returned to ICCS, and they reholdered it again as MS64 but corrected the date on the cert. It was XRF'd with the exact correct composition. There is also a Canada 1920 25 cent included in the discussion that is equally good, similarly graded authentic by ICCS, bagged by PCGS. I think both may also have been bagged by NGC. The RCNA article is mentioned on page 6. The saga on CCF spanned two years.
KbbpII
I was more thinking of the RCNA article in issue October-November 2018 on page 295.
the authors were SPP and Bosox, both Members here and CCF.
am not sure if one has to be a member to read it, but here is a link to the issue to download it.
https://www.rcna.ca/cnjournal/main.php
Sorry, there is no online version for a direkt link ( I am not aware of it if there is) , except PDF.
@YQQ SPP-Ottawa posted on that CCF thread "the latest issue of the CN Journal (publication of the RCNA) has an article on this new 1891 counterfeit large cent." on 11/9/18 so I'm guessing we're talking about the same coin and article. The real "tell" on that 1891 were the lines from laser cut dies. On the coin in this thread, I'm leaning towards contemporary counterfeit meant to take advantage of the discrepancy between silver price and face value, same as the Morgans of the era. It would be interesting to know if the composition of the 1899 quarter is more in line with sterling silver like the Morgans.
My friends at the Barber Coins Collectors' Society have the following info listed about the 1899 DDR from a past survey they conducted:
They show an obvious die break in an image for this variety (image of this example on the right):
I have sent a note asking their opinion as well as a note to my contact at PCGS.
They are discussing this coin on CT. Thanks to @burfle23, I learned that the Barber collectors believe it is a struck counterfeit. Members here report that this coin and slab are imaged by PCGS which means they graded a coin and slab as genuine. I have not confirmed this.
Question: What's to stop a faker from making a REPLICA of a genuine coin in a genuine PCGS slab and this is one of them? I'd need to see this exact coin/slab combo on the PCGS site to believe an error was made!
. . . I'd need to see this exact coin/slab combo on the PCGS site to believe an error was made!
You can copy / paste the following to link to the coin on the PCGS site . . . https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1899-25c-ddr-fs-901/511562
Furthermore, the following takes you to the Cert Verification . . . https://www.pcgs.com/cert/32495319
Thanks. Hey, no TPGS is perfect! Let's see what happens in the future if it is examined again.
As I wrote before, this thing would possibly pass right thru the system because no one would be expecting it. Look at the coin, see the DDR, grade it and away it went!
IMHO, this coin would not pass a three-second examination under a low power (7X) stereo microscope. I have suggested to one TPGS that they start training someone to use this method on everything to develop their eye for genuine coins at a degree most professionals have never seen in their ENTIRE CAREER!
As of now, at many TPGS's a scope is only pulled out occasionally when a hand lens is not sufficient (typically 2 coins a month). Mine is used on at least 97% of the coins I examine.
Generally Depending on the coin:
100% of coins get an eye exam first using incandescent light.
Next, about 97% go under the 7X-40X zoom microscope with florescent light. Then about 75% of those are viewed with 7X hand lens under incandescent light again.
OR:
100% of coins get an eye exam first using incandescent light.
Next, about 97% go under the 7X-40X zoom microscope with florescent light.
OR for for bullion:
100% of coins get an eye exam first using incandescent light.
100% of the coins examined with a 7X hand lens.
40% checked again with the scope to see what caused/how important the defect is.
We are aware of this coin and are currently investigating. There was some great discussion on this thread however it is being closed until the investigation is complete.
Heather Boyd
PCGS Senior Director of Marketing