Treasury and Secret Service says it's real, TPGs say it's fake, it sells for $50K, what do you say?

Zoins

1959-D Lincoln Wheat Back Cent

Secret Service: it's real
TPGs: it's fake

What do you say?

Here's some info on this:

The Secret Service states his claims have no merit and asserted on two occasions the 1959 mule cent is real. Grading companies and error experts disagree. If it is not genuine, I am not sure if it would be a counterfeit or altered coin. Some say the copper planchet is real but the die strikes are fake, which means it's an altered coin; others believe the planchet and dies are both fake which would classify this as 100% counterfeit. What is certain is that it sold for $50,000 at a Goldberg auction in 2019. What will this disputed coin go for next time? (Photos used with permission from Glenn Onishi, COO of Ira & Larry Goldberg Coins & Collectibles, Inc.)

More here: https://www.coinbooks.org/v23/esylum_v23n38a30.html

Twobitcollector

I would go with the TPG.
I don't think the SS has any REAL coin experts/NUMISMATIST on staff.

Zoins

Here's some background on this coin from Goldberg which indicates the Treasury Department said it's real.

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. Baller sent the coin to the United States Department of the Treasury for authentication in early 1987. Jim Brown, a forensic lab authenticator for the Department of the Treasury examined the coin and found no indication that it was counterfeit. The coin was returned to Baller on February 7, 1986 with a letter signed by Richard M. McDrew, Special Agent for the Department of the Treasury. The letter states as follows:

"Enclosed is your United States 1¢ coin, dated 1959-D, with wheat reverse. This coin was microscopically examined by our Forensic Services Division in Washington, D.C. and it is their opinion the coin is genuine."

https://www.goldbergcoins.com/m/lot-details/index/catalog/3/lot/10563/

Zoins

This is interesting reasoning for not encapsulating it:

Joshua McMorrow-Hernandez wrote:

Still, the Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS), Numismatic Guaranty Corporation (NGC), and American Numismatic Association Certification Service (ANACS) have made “no decision” determinations on the coin, refusing to encapsulate it on the grounds that they can’t find evidence the US Mint actually produced the coin

If it wasn't encapsulated because there's no evidence of production, how were the 1913 Liberty nickels encapsulated?

And this comes with letters from the Treasury saying it's genuine!

From : https://www.greysheet.com/news/story/1959-d-lincoln-cent-turns-heads

thebeav

I think that, regardless of independent opinions, the coin is worth 50 grand.
It's a famous coin, it's never going to go away, and someone will always want it.......

TurtleCat

I guess the question is whether you trust the mint’s evaluation years ago or all the specialized authenticators at the big TPGs. I lean to the latter.

ricko

After reading the linked treasury evaluation/report, I think the TPG's should accept the facts presented and encapsulate the coin as genuine. The Treasury experts applied scientific analysis to arrive at the conclusion. Cheers, RickO

DCW

I thought it was a foregone conclusion that this coin was fake. If real, it would probably be worth several hundred thousand dollars. It pops up for auction every once in a while, and the house always quotes the "opinion" of the secret service that examined it 35 years ago. Remember, this is the same agency that determined genuine 1969-s doubled dies were counterfeits and summarily destroyed them.
I guess for some, $50,000 is worth the gamble that it MIGHT be real. Might someday be accepted. I would love for the unicorn to be true, but I'm not buying it.
Has @CaptHenway or @FredWeinberg ever viewed the coin in hand? I seem to remember a story that one of them had inspected it

Jimnight

I personally don't believe anything they say. I stand behind the TPGs.

Exbrit

Forensics in the late 1980s is light years behind what they are today.

291fifth

I'll go with the TPG.

seanq

@DCW said:
I thought it was a foregone conclusion that this coin was fake. If real, it would probably be worth several hundred thousand dollars. It pops up for auction every once in a while, and the house always quotes the "opinion" of the secret service that examined it 35 years ago. Remember, this is the same agency that determined genuine 1969-s doubled dies were counterfeits and summarily destroyed them.
I guess for some, $50,000 is worth the gamble that it MIGHT be real. Might someday be accepted. I would love for the unicorn to be true, but I'm not buying it.
Has @CaptHenway or @FredWeinberg ever viewed the coin in hand? I seem to remember a story that one of them had inspected it

Like you, I always think about the 1969-S doubled die when someone quotes a Secret Service opinion of a coin.

Even if it could be traced back to the Mint, I would view it like the 1970 proof struck on a Barber quarter, or the Sacagawea / quarter mules - illicit Mint shenanigans of little interest to me. And I say that as an avid error collector - I love when the Mint messes up by accident, not so much when they do it on purpose.

Sean Reynolds

messydesk

The coin is worth what people are willing to pay in light of the facts plainly and repeatedly set forth. The challenge outlined in the Goldberg lot description to find matching die polishing lines among 1958-D reverses and 1959-D obverses is a reasonable one to make given the quantity of coins available for searching. If a TPG or auction house were to put a cash reward behind it, then you'd suddenly have a lot of people looking.

The text doesn't mention the die state of the obverse and reverse. I would expect the obverse to be EDS, under the assumption that the coin was made early, before the die was placed into normal service. The reverse is trickier. If it were among the last dies used in 1958, it could be LDS from pounding out a lot of coins, or EDS from not getting many strikes in before production was stopped. Another possibility is that the reverse is an unused die that hadn't been destroyed yet, in which case no match will be found to the reverse.

If the transition of the reverse had taken place in 1973 and this coin were dated 1973-S, I imagine the sentiment would be more strongly in the "probably real" camp. Shenanigans at mints were nothing new in 1959, nor had they stopped by then.

kiyote

I am going with the treasury on this, not so much that I feel it’s counterfeit or not but that the letter authenticates it.

My guess is that someone used non-mint dies to create a fantasy piece over strike.

YQQ

there was a case in Canada about the 1967 Goose silver dollars. double struck** on both sides**-offset by far
very few are known and rumor has it all known were owned by one dealer. at the time, the mint had "backdoor smoke doors" for smoke breaks and security was an honor system I assume.
Case went to court and the judges were clear: if it was produced at the mint it is a legit coin.
it left a ton of questions wide open. like one: how could that happen?
today every TPG recognizes this "error" or "variety"?

FredWeinberg

I've mentioned this before in other threads about the coin -

The 'Treasury Letter' that everyone quotes as saying that it
authenticated the 59-D as genuine came from the BEP -
Not the US Mint.

I've seen a copy of the letter (might have it around here but
haven't found it in my files yet) and it's a Currency person
who said the coin was genuine, not a Coin person from the Mint.

The coin is not genuine, in my opinion.

Connecticoin

I am actually surprised there are not several 1958 Memorial or 1959 Wheat cents out there given the number of copper 1943 and steel 1944 cents out there. Of course that probably means the chance of a wrong planchet error is much higher than the chance of the wrong obverse/reverse die.

That being said, if the 1959 Wheat was done by "mistake" there would probably be several dozen or more out there instead of just one.

jmlanzaf

@Connecticoin said:
I am actually surprised there are not several 1958 Memorial or 1959 Wheat cents out there given the number of copper 1943 and steel 1944 cents out there. Of course that probably means the chance of a wrong planchet error is much higher than the chance of the wrong obverse/reverse die.

That being said, if the 1959 Wheat was done by "mistake" there would probably be several dozen or more out there instead of just one.

Probably, but not definitively. If the press operator accidentally put the former reverse into the press for a short time and then caught it, he might have thought he pulled all the errors out of the bin but missed one.

FredWeinberg

There was no US Mint press operator
involved in this coin, imo.

rec78

I don't know if it is real or fake-my guess is fake. This is just one of those never ending controversies, but I hope I can find one somewhere. Would it be legal for a person like Dan Carr to produce these?

"That being said, if the 1959 Wheat was done by "mistake" there would probably be several dozen or more out there instead of just one."
I dunno, kinda brings to mind the 1942-S nickel nickel.

trueblood

Since when is a microscopic examination the only basis from which to determine if a coin is real?

MFeld

@DarkRage666 said:

@Zoins said:
1959-D Lincoln Wheat Back Cent

Secret Service: it's real
TPGs: it's fake

What do you say?

Here's some info on this:

The Secret Service states his claims have no merit and asserted on two occasions the 1959 mule cent is real. Grading companies and error experts disagree. If it is not genuine, I am not sure if it would be a counterfeit or altered coin. Some say the copper planchet is real but the die strikes are fake, which means it's an altered coin; others believe the planchet and dies are both fake which would classify this as 100% counterfeit. What is certain is that it sold for $50,000 at a Goldberg auction in 2019. What will this disputed coin go for next time? (Photos used with permission from Glenn Onishi, COO of Ira & Larry Goldberg Coins & Collectibles, Inc.)

More here: https://www.coinbooks.org/v23/esylum_v23n38a30.html

Grading companies (the experts) know better than the U.S. Government freaks who think they know everything... I believe it's a fake and I see no reason to doubt TPGS. I think whoever paid $50k was ripped off by the seller and this coin should've never existed or sold on the open market. If the Smithsonian Museum doesn't have this "rare" error there is no reason to doubt it being fake. Now on that note, there are tons of other mules that are done on purpose and this would fit in that group. If anything these should be kept as a curiosity and shouldn't retail for anything more than $10

How was the winning bidder "ripped off by the seller"? I believe the coin's history as known, has been fairly presented over a period of many years.

oih82w8

I would like to see additional examples of this "coin". I find it highly improbable that ONE "coin" was struck wit this particular die combination. What is the feed rate, with 1959 era presses, into a single set of dies on a particular press? Hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands per minute?

tradedollarnut

Hey, Darkrage - please limit your sigline photos to one line. Thanks

See rule 5 here:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1009079/pcgs-forum-rules-and-guidelines-updated-1-27-2020#latest

jmlanzaf

@DarkRage666 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Connecticoin said:
I am actually surprised there are not several 1958 Memorial or 1959 Wheat cents out there given the number of copper 1943 and steel 1944 cents out there. Of course that probably means the chance of a wrong planchet error is much higher than the chance of the wrong obverse/reverse die.

That being said, if the 1959 Wheat was done by "mistake" there would probably be several dozen or more out there instead of just one.

Probably, but not definitively. If the press operator accidentally put the former reverse into the press for a short time and then caught it, he might have thought he pulled all the errors out of the bin but missed one.

Possibly, but couldn't there be the chance that the operator purposely did this to only 1 coin?

Of course. Although if you're going to make one, why wouldn't you make 2 or 10?

messydesk

@jmlanzaf said:

@DarkRage666 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Connecticoin said:
I am actually surprised there are not several 1958 Memorial or 1959 Wheat cents out there given the number of copper 1943 and steel 1944 cents out there. Of course that probably means the chance of a wrong planchet error is much higher than the chance of the wrong obverse/reverse die.

That being said, if the 1959 Wheat was done by "mistake" there would probably be several dozen or more out there instead of just one.

Probably, but not definitively. If the press operator accidentally put the former reverse into the press for a short time and then caught it, he might have thought he pulled all the errors out of the bin but missed one.

Possibly, but couldn't there be the chance that the operator purposely did this to only 1 coin?

Of course. Although if you're going to make one, why wouldn't you make 2 or 10?

5 seems the most likely number when undertaking such an operation.

jmlanzaf

@DarkRage666 said:

@MFeld said:

@DarkRage666 said:

@Zoins said:
1959-D Lincoln Wheat Back Cent

Secret Service: it's real
TPGs: it's fake

What do you say?

Here's some info on this:

The Secret Service states his claims have no merit and asserted on two occasions the 1959 mule cent is real. Grading companies and error experts disagree. If it is not genuine, I am not sure if it would be a counterfeit or altered coin. Some say the copper planchet is real but the die strikes are fake, which means it's an altered coin; others believe the planchet and dies are both fake which would classify this as 100% counterfeit. What is certain is that it sold for $50,000 at a Goldberg auction in 2019. What will this disputed coin go for next time? (Photos used with permission from Glenn Onishi, COO of Ira & Larry Goldberg Coins & Collectibles, Inc.)

More here: https://www.coinbooks.org/v23/esylum_v23n38a30.html

Grading companies (the experts) know better than the U.S. Government freaks who think they know everything... I believe it's a fake and I see no reason to doubt TPGS. I think whoever paid $50k was ripped off by the seller and this coin should've never existed or sold on the open market. If the Smithsonian Museum doesn't have this "rare" error there is no reason to doubt it being fake. Now on that note, there are tons of other mules that are done on purpose and this would fit in that group. If anything these should be kept as a curiosity and shouldn't retail for anything more than $10

How was the winning bidder "ripped off by the seller"? I believe the coin's history as known, has been fairly presented over a period of many years.

Because it is believed to be fake... A fake coin shouldn't be worth $50k.. It's just where I stand.. you may not agree with me and I respect that...

The market determined it to be worth $50k, no matter what you think it should be worth.

While $50k is high, there are a lot of known "fakes" (electrotypes) that sell for significant amounts of money. There are some counterfeit confederate notes and continental notes that are worth more than originals.

jmlanzaf

@messydesk said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@DarkRage666 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Connecticoin said:
I am actually surprised there are not several 1958 Memorial or 1959 Wheat cents out there given the number of copper 1943 and steel 1944 cents out there. Of course that probably means the chance of a wrong planchet error is much higher than the chance of the wrong obverse/reverse die.

That being said, if the 1959 Wheat was done by "mistake" there would probably be several dozen or more out there instead of just one.

Probably, but not definitively. If the press operator accidentally put the former reverse into the press for a short time and then caught it, he might have thought he pulled all the errors out of the bin but missed one.

Possibly, but couldn't there be the chance that the operator purposely did this to only 1 coin?

Of course. Although if you're going to make one, why wouldn't you make 2 or 10?

5 seems the most likely number when undertaking such an operation.

Yes, that does seem to be the ballpark. 1913 Liberty nickels. 1958 DDO Lincolns....

johnny9434

id have to pass on that and go with the tpg's

ianrussell

Did Mark Hofmann have anything to do with a coin like this?

• Ian

jmlanzaf

@ianrussell said:
Did Mark Hofmann have anything to do with a coin like this?

• Ian

That is an interesting question. It would certainly be right up his alley.

ianrussell

@jmlanzaf said:

@ianrussell said:
Did Mark Hofmann have anything to do with a coin like this?

• Ian

That is an interesting question. It would certainly be right up his alley.

Found on Google:

In 2002, Hofmann made claim to creating the controversial 1959-D Lincoln Cent Mule, which notably passed Treasury Department inspection but remains an anomaly. According to a New York Times article, Hoffman's forgeries were the most sophisticated ever seen, fooling nearly all the top forgery experts in the country.

jmlanzaf

@DarkRage666 said:

@ianrussell said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@ianrussell said:
Did Mark Hofmann have anything to do with a coin like this?

• Ian

That is an interesting question. It would certainly be right up his alley.

Found on Google:

In 2002, Hofmann made claim to creating the controversial 1959-D Lincoln Cent Mule, which notably passed Treasury Department inspection but remains an anomaly. According to a New York Times article, Hoffman's forgeries were the most sophisticated ever seen, fooling nearly all the top forgery experts in the country.

I wonder how he did it... did he steal dies, blanks, and whatnot from the mint or did he create them hisself?

Google Hofman. He did a lot of really high quality forgeries.

ianrussell

As full disclosure - this is also noted about Hofmann's claim about producing the 1959 Mule Cent:

>

The Secret Service later reported that they found no merit to Hofmann's claim.

CaptHenway

@DCW said:
I thought it was a foregone conclusion that this coin was fake. If real, it would probably be worth several hundred thousand dollars. It pops up for auction every once in a while, and the house always quotes the "opinion" of the secret service that examined it 35 years ago. Remember, this is the same agency that determined genuine 1969-s doubled dies were counterfeits and summarily destroyed them.
I guess for some, $50,000 is worth the gamble that it MIGHT be real. Might someday be accepted. I would love for the unicorn to be true, but I'm not buying it.
Has @CaptHenway or @FredWeinberg ever viewed the coin in hand? I seem to remember a story that one of them had inspected it

I was walking the aisles at an ANA convention (where I was not working at a table) when I ran into one of the Goldbergs, who asked me nicely if I would mind taking a look at the 1959-D. I cannot remember if he knew or not that I had previously condemned the 1959 back when I was still at Coin World.

Naturally I said of course, and using a borrowed lamp and the 10x and 20x loupes I had on me took a good look at the piece. I told him that I could not condemn it for any particular reason, but that I did not like it. He thanked me for my opinion and we parted ways.

to this day I cannot condemn it for any particular reason. My gut instinct remains that I do not like it.

TD

MarkInDavis

Just because a TPG won’t certify it does not not mean that TPG thinks it is fake. It means they are less than 100% sure it’s real. Maybe the TPG is 90% sure it is legit but is not willing to be on the hook for its value if it cant later be proven fake.

BillJones

If there was an iron-clad reason to believe that this piece is genuine, it would sell for a lot more than $50,000.

cameonut2011

It looks like something Carr would make.

SaorAlba

Mark Hofman must be brilliant, but deeply troubled. He managed to fool a lot of people with the "Salamander Letter" etc. He was known to be a coin collector and he claims to have counterfeited it.

IkesT

This particular item raises another interesting question - if you do not stand behind the authenticity of a coin, should it be offered for sale?

The link for the auction listing is below. It contains the longest description I've ever seen for an auction listing. They don't sidestep the controversy, but certainly put a positive spin on the coin.

https://www.goldbergcoins.com/m/lot-details/index/catalog/3/lot/10563/

Then comes the last sentence:

"The property is not guaranteed to be authentic, and is marketable as is, and can not be returned."

Coinosaurus

I'd trust Treasury to authenticate a $100 bill, but for this I trust the TPGs more. Secret Service spends a lot more time on high denomination paper money.

MasonG

@IkesT said:
"The property is not guaranteed to be authentic, and is marketable as is, and can not be returned."

I don't see a problem with offering the coin for sale with this disclosure. If you want to buy it, put on your Big Boy pants and take responsibility for your decision.

crazyhounddog

Which ever the case, real or not, it makes one hell of a conversation piece. A lot of history attached to that coin and I think that’s what’s driving the bus.
Thanks for sharing the great article 👌

IkesT

@MasonG said:

@IkesT said:
"The property is not guaranteed to be authentic, and is marketable as is, and can not be returned."

I don't see a problem with offering the coin for sale with this disclosure. If you want to buy it, put on your Big Boy pants and take responsibility for your decision.

Pants or no pants, that doesn't answer my question. Would you, MasonG, promote such a coin and offer it for sale if you had doubts about its authenticity? It seems pretty awkward to me...

Zoins

@IkesT said:

@MasonG said:

@IkesT said:
"The property is not guaranteed to be authentic, and is marketable as is, and can not be returned."

I don't see a problem with offering the coin for sale with this disclosure. If you want to buy it, put on your Big Boy pants and take responsibility for your decision.

Pants or no pants, that doesn't answer my question. Would you, MasonG, promote such a coin and offer it for sale if you had doubts about its authenticity? It seems pretty awkward to me...

Why not? This particular coin is a fairly well known entity now.