@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.
Why sell any coin if you don't stand behind its authenticity?
@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.
Why sell any coin if you don't stand behind its authenticity?
Primarily because people are adults, capable of making their own decisions and know what they want.
Houses are sold that way all the time. It’s buyer beware which is why buyers are responsible for title issues and title insurance.
Also, generally sellers here are in the consignment business not the authentication business. They rely on TPGs and others for authentication. Here, the party to rely on is the US federal government.
@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...
@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.
Why sell any coin if you don't stand behind its authenticity?
Primarily because people are adults, capable of making their own decisions and know what they want.
Houses are sold that way all the time. It’s buyer beware which is why buyers are responsible for title issues and title insurance.
It's pretty hard to imagine a scenario where I'd sell a collectible if I believed there was a good chance it was fake. It's not about what people want, it's about what I'm willing to do. Am I willing to stick someone with a $50,000 fake coin? I don't think so.
@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.
Why sell any coin if you don't stand behind its authenticity?
Primarily because people are adults, capable of making their own decisions and know what they want.
Houses are sold that way all the time. It’s buyer beware which is why buyers are responsible for title issues and title insurance.
Also, generally sellers here are in the consignment business not the authentication business. They rely on TPGs and others for authentication. Here, the party to rely on is the US federal government.
This is true. And, authentic or not, it is what it is. Even counterfeits have a market. Electrotypes are highly saleable. As long as everyone is honest about what it is, what's the harm.
Look at Continental Dollars. There are still questions about the exact nature of them. Didn't they just recently posit that they may actually be British made souvenirs rather than pattern coins? Should these all be pulled from the market because of the questions?
I won't even go into the 1913 Liberty nickels and 1958 DD Lincoln.
@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.
Why sell any coin if you don't stand behind its authenticity?
Primarily because people are adults, capable of making their own decisions and know what they want.
Houses are sold that way all the time. It’s buyer beware which is why buyers are responsible for title issues and title insurance.
Also, generally sellers here are in the consignment business not the authentication business. They rely on TPGs and others for authentication. Here, the party to rely on is the US federal government.
This is true. And, authentic or not, it is what it is. Even counterfeits have a market. Electrotypes are highly saleable. As long as everyone is honest about what it is, what's the harm.
Look at Continental Dollars. There are still questions about the exact nature of them. Didn't they just recently posit that they may actually be British made souvenirs rather than pattern coins? Should these all be pulled from the market because of the questions?
I won't even go into the 1913 Liberty nickels and 1958 DD Lincoln.
@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.
Why sell any coin if you don't stand behind its authenticity?
Primarily because people are adults, capable of making their own decisions and know what they want.
Houses are sold that way all the time. It’s buyer beware which is why buyers are responsible for title issues and title insurance.
Also, generally sellers here are in the consignment business not the authentication business. They rely on TPGs and others for authentication. Here, the party to rely on is the US federal government.
This is true. And, authentic or not, it is what it is. Even counterfeits have a market. Electrotypes are highly saleable. As long as everyone is honest about what it is, what's the harm.
Look at Continental Dollars. There are still questions about the exact nature of them. Didn't they just recently posit that they may actually be British made souvenirs rather than pattern coins? Should these all be pulled from the market because of the questions?
I won't even go into the 1913 Liberty nickels and 1958 DD Lincoln.
The market decides.
Apples and oranges.
Not at all. The market decides based on what is known. Period. It's not my job, or yours, to protect the market from itself.
@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...
@IkesT said:
It's pretty hard to imagine a scenario where I'd sell a collectible if I believed there was a good chance it was fake. It's not about what people want, it's about what I'm willing to do.
Nobody is asking you to do anything you don't want to.
@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...
@IkesT said:
It's pretty hard to imagine a scenario where I'd sell a collectible if I believed there was a good chance it was fake. It's not about what people want, it's about what I'm willing to do.
Nobody is asking you to do anything you don't want to.
That's a personal choice. We all make our own. I've sold many known "fakes": electrotypes, contemporary counterfeits, restrikes. > @IkesT 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...
Yes
With or without pants?
My big boy pants are always on.
You can decide for yourself what you are comfortable with.
I've sold lots of "fakes", never once as anything but a known fake: electrotypes, contemporary counterfeit, restrikes, etc. A lot of it is very collectible. The market decides.
@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.
Why sell any coin if you don't stand behind its authenticity?
Primarily because people are adults, capable of making their own decisions and know what they want.
Houses are sold that way all the time. It’s buyer beware which is why buyers are responsible for title issues and title insurance.
It's pretty hard to imagine a scenario where I'd sell a collectible if I believed there was a good chance it was fake. It's not about what people want, it's about what I'm willing to do. Am I willing to stick someone with a $50,000 fake coin? I don't think so.
There's no deception here. It's one thing to sell something without disclosing it's fake. It's another to sell it with full disclosure.
And it's fine for different people tot have different inclinations.
The added nuance here is that the US government said this is real, twice. The US government won't say the 1913 Liberty nickel is real. So which one would you sell, or neither?
Experts and auctioneers. My guess is it will sell for less than buyer paid for it when or if he goes to sell it, and will sell for more if Goldberg's get it back in an auction.
Hey, lets back up a little bit here!...You are saying that the 1969-s doubled die coins aren't real? What does that mean for the one in my collection?.... Damn, I probably wasted that $3.00.
So the govt analyzed the coin forensically and says its real. The TPG's say they wont authenticate it just because they have no proof it was produced by the mint. Hmmm... If thats all we know right now i side with the govt.
@stockdude_ said:
So the govt analyzed the coin forensically and says its real. The TPG's say they wont authenticate it just because they have no proof it was produced by the mint. Hmmm... If thats all we know right now i side with the govt.
That is my understanding concerning the TPG, they didn't grade it because there isn't a record of it being produced. I am not seeing the difference between this coin and the 1913 nickels.
What if a notarized letter appears from a former mint employee stating that he surreptitiously minted the coin? Is this suddenly a $10m coin?
@stockdude_ said:
So the govt analyzed the coin forensically and says its real. The TPG's say they wont authenticate it just because they have no proof it was produced by the mint. Hmmm... If thats all we know right now i side with the govt.
That is my understanding concerning the TPG, they didn't grade it because there isn't a record of it being produced. I am not seeing the difference between this coin and the 1913 nickels.
What if a notarized letter appears from a former mint employee stating that he surreptitiously minted the coin? Is this suddenly a $10m coin?
It's probably a $1 million+ coin if it were universally recognized as a legitimate mint error. If you look at the price of the copper 1943's as a guide. This would be unique.
If a Mint employee admitted to surreptitiously minting it, it would probably be seized by the government. Mint employees are not allowed to make their own coins, after all.
@thefinn said:
It should be considered a token like Dan Carr’s overstrikes until/if proven legitimate.
Which of the following do you consider has proof?
1959-D Wheat Cent which the US government says is legit but TPGs don’t?
1913 Liberty Nickels which the TPGs say are legit but the US government doesn’t?
Both
Neither
There are 5 - 1913 V Nickels to compare die characteristics to. Only one 1959-D. There is your proof.
That's not any more proof than a single specimen as all 5 1913 Liberty nickels were discovered together and most likely were struck in a single striking session.
As far as I know, all the TPGS' didn't authenticate because
there is 'no record of it' or proof it was struck at the Mint.
They didn't authenticate it because they don't think it's authentic.
PCGS and NGC have authenticated lots of coins that there is
'no proof/no record' of.
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 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
Is there a plausible scenario where that coin could have been created at the mint? Is there any potential overlapping of 1958 and 1959 coins at the Denver mint?
My assumption is there is nothing in the mint records that point to a scenario where a 59-D Wheatback could have been created, either by accident, or intentionally by an employee selling coins out of the back door, or else it would have been verified years ago.
That's probably the way to look at it, the market for that coin is for people who like to suspend disbelief, which is perfectly fine, in my opinion.
@FredWeinberg said:
As far as I know, all the TPGS' didn't authenticate because
there is 'no record of it' or proof it was struck at the Mint.
They didn't authenticate it because they don't think it's authentic.
PCGS and NGC have authenticated lots of coins that there is
'no proof/no record' of.
Fred, if that was the case - and my guess is that you're correct - why didn't the TPG's just make the call, like they have done on so many other coins they thought were counterfeit?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@JRGeyer said:
Is there a plausible scenario where that coin could have been created at the mint? Is there any potential overlapping of 1958 and 1959 coins at the Denver mint?
My assumption is there is nothing in the mint records that point to a scenario where a 59-D Wheatback could have been created, either by accident, or intentionally by an employee selling coins out of the back door, or else it would have been verified years ago.
That's probably the way to look at it, the market for that coin is for people who like to suspend disbelief, which is perfectly fine, in my opinion.
All it takes is for an old reverse die to be lying around.
Frankly, I always thought it surprising that there weren't any.
I didn't see the 'return' label on the coin years ago,
but I assume it said 'questionable authenticity'
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 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
Does anybody remember the name of the alias that Hofmann used? There was a scene in the Netflix show where he ordered something from a printer in the name of the alias, but when he went to pick it up and pay cash he was $2 short so he wrote a check for $2 in his real name and that was one of the ways they got him.
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.
@CaptHenway said:
Does anybody remember the name of the alias that Hofmann used? There was a scene in the Netflix show where he ordered something from a printer in the name of the alias, but when he went to pick it up and pay cash he was $2 short so he wrote a check for $2 in his real name and that was one of the ways they got him.
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.
It's pretty hard to imagine a scenario where I'd sell a collectible if I believed there was a good chance it was fake. It's not about what people want, it's about what I'm willing to do. Am I willing to stick someone with a $50,000 fake coin? I don't think so.
But you are not sticking it to someone if you tell them it could be fake and to go look at the well-established history of the coin. Then they can decide themselves.............
@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
This last part I've bolded is interesting. It seems like there's no reason to condemn this other than Mark Hofmann claimed to produce this piece. If so, perhaps this claim is enough to shake people's confidence in their authentication abilities?
So, is the coin real or fake? No one really knows for sure. However, it is curious that after 50 years, only one coin is known to exist. The odds of only one coin being discovered after all this time makes it very difficult to imagine, since a coin press operates so fast and usually strikes more than just one coin. If you ask any coin expert who really understands the coin minting process, most will agree that the coin is not an authentic mint-made coin. One thing is for certain, the 1959-D Mule cent is definitely one of the most controversial coins in numismatics.
If the only reason to condemn this is that a unique specimen exists, then I wonder why the 1943-D bronze cent or 1974-D aluminum cent were TPG slabbed? Are both struck using the same dies as other pieces?
Imagine if Mark Hofmann said he did the 1943-D bronze cent? Would that possibility reduce the price of that coin?
And as mentioned above, all 5 1913 Liberty nickels were likely struck in one session, so I'd consider them to be in the same situation.
Comments
Why sell any coin if you don't stand behind its authenticity?
Primarily because people are adults, capable of making their own decisions and know what they want.
Houses are sold that way all the time. It’s buyer beware which is why buyers are responsible for title issues and title insurance.
Also, generally sellers here are in the consignment business not the authentication business. They rely on TPGs and others for authentication. Here, the party to rely on is the US federal government.
Yes
It's pretty hard to imagine a scenario where I'd sell a collectible if I believed there was a good chance it was fake. It's not about what people want, it's about what I'm willing to do. Am I willing to stick someone with a $50,000 fake coin? I don't think so.
This is true. And, authentic or not, it is what it is. Even counterfeits have a market. Electrotypes are highly saleable. As long as everyone is honest about what it is, what's the harm.
Look at Continental Dollars. There are still questions about the exact nature of them. Didn't they just recently posit that they may actually be British made souvenirs rather than pattern coins? Should these all be pulled from the market because of the questions?
I won't even go into the 1913 Liberty nickels and 1958 DD Lincoln.
The market decides.
Apples and oranges.
Not at all. The market decides based on what is known. Period. It's not my job, or yours, to protect the market from itself.
Sure. What's awkward about it?
I am convinced it is the real deal.
Nobody is asking you to do anything you don't want to.
With or without pants?
That's a personal choice. We all make our own. I've sold many known "fakes": electrotypes, contemporary counterfeits, restrikes. > @IkesT said:
My big boy pants are always on.
You can decide for yourself what you are comfortable with.
I've sold lots of "fakes", never once as anything but a known fake: electrotypes, contemporary counterfeit, restrikes, etc. A lot of it is very collectible. The market decides.
There's no deception here. It's one thing to sell something without disclosing it's fake. It's another to sell it with full disclosure.
And it's fine for different people tot have different inclinations.
The added nuance here is that the US government said this is real, twice. The US government won't say the 1913 Liberty nickel is real. So which one would you sell, or neither?
Send the coin to this guy.
https://easyzoom.com/image/239899/album/0/4?mode=manage
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Experts and auctioneers. My guess is it will sell for less than buyer paid for it when or if he goes to sell it, and will sell for more if Goldberg's get it back in an auction.
Has anyone asked the US Mint to evaluate the authenticity of this cent?
I would accept Fred Weinberg's opinion at face value as not being asuthentic.
Not sure about the US Mint, but it was evaluated twice by the US Government twice:
In both cases, the US said the coin was genuine and returned it to the owner with a letter stating it was genuine.
See more here:
https://www.goldbergcoins.com/m/lot-details/index/catalog/3/lot/10563/
Hey, lets back up a little bit here!...You are saying that the 1969-s doubled die coins aren't real? What does that mean for the one in my collection?....
Damn, I probably wasted that $3.00.
As long as the coin roams the twilight zone of authenticity, it will always have a market. The price paid will vary.
So the govt analyzed the coin forensically and says its real. The TPG's say they wont authenticate it just because they have no proof it was produced by the mint. Hmmm... If thats all we know right now i side with the govt.
That is my understanding concerning the TPG, they didn't grade it because there isn't a record of it being produced. I am not seeing the difference between this coin and the 1913 nickels.
What if a notarized letter appears from a former mint employee stating that he surreptitiously minted the coin? Is this suddenly a $10m coin?
It's probably a $1 million+ coin if it were universally recognized as a legitimate mint error. If you look at the price of the copper 1943's as a guide. This would be unique.
If a Mint employee admitted to surreptitiously minting it, it would probably be seized by the government. Mint employees are not allowed to make their own coins, after all.
It should be considered a token like Dan Carr’s overstrikes until/if proven legitimate.
How would you propose that be done?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Which of the following do you consider has proof?
There are 5 - 1913 V Nickels to compare die characteristics to. Only one 1959-D. There is your proof.
There are 5 - 1913 V Nickels to compare die characteristics to. Only one 1959-D. There is your proof.
Don’t call it a coin if you aren’t willing to call it a coin with documentation and putting your name and reputation on the line.
The US Government did, twice.
That's not any more proof than a single specimen as all 5 1913 Liberty nickels were discovered together and most likely were struck in a single striking session.
What does the BEP know about coins?
If a 1933 StGaudens double eagle isn’t considered a coin, then why should a 1959-D wheatback cent?
See the detailed letter from the:
United States Secret Service Office of Investigations Counterfeit Division
Why are you trying to convince me? Call PCGS or NGC! They’re the ones that say it isn’t real, or at least can’t be proven to be real.
This is not unique. There are occasionally coins for which TPGS's won't render opinions.
That doesn't answer the question - how would you propose to prove that the coin is legitimate?
That's off point. The authenticity of the 1933 Saints isn't in question and has nothing to do with it.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
As far as I know, all the TPGS' didn't authenticate because
there is 'no record of it' or proof it was struck at the Mint.
They didn't authenticate it because they don't think it's authentic.
PCGS and NGC have authenticated lots of coins that there is
'no proof/no record' of.
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
Is there a plausible scenario where that coin could have been created at the mint? Is there any potential overlapping of 1958 and 1959 coins at the Denver mint?
My assumption is there is nothing in the mint records that point to a scenario where a 59-D Wheatback could have been created, either by accident, or intentionally by an employee selling coins out of the back door, or else it would have been verified years ago.
That's probably the way to look at it, the market for that coin is for people who like to suspend disbelief, which is perfectly fine, in my opinion.
Fred, if that was the case - and my guess is that you're correct - why didn't the TPG's just make the call, like they have done on so many other coins they thought were counterfeit?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
All it takes is for an old reverse die to be lying around.
Frankly, I always thought it surprising that there weren't any.
Mark,
I didn't see the 'return' label on the coin years ago,
but I assume it said 'questionable authenticity'
for PCGS. A 49+-Year PNG Member...A full numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022
Thanks, Fred.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Does anybody remember the name of the alias that Hofmann used? There was a scene in the Netflix show where he ordered something from a printer in the name of the alias, but when he went to pick it up and pay cash he was $2 short so he wrote a check for $2 in his real name and that was one of the ways they got him.
The hobby would need to come to a consensus to redefine token to be a synonym of counterfeit.
Mike Hansen
Thanks!
But then what do we call tokens? Chips of trade?
Maybe we could call them infrastructure and get a grant.
But you are not sticking it to someone if you tell them it could be fake and to go look at the well-established history of the coin. Then they can decide themselves.............
What reasons do you have for not thinking it's not genuine?
This last part I've bolded is interesting. It seems like there's no reason to condemn this other than Mark Hofmann claimed to produce this piece. If so, perhaps this claim is enough to shake people's confidence in their authentication abilities?
Here's an article from PCGS on this:
https://www.pcgs.com/news/the-mystery-of-the-1959-d-mule-lincoln-cent
If the only reason to condemn this is that a unique specimen exists, then I wonder why the 1943-D bronze cent or 1974-D aluminum cent were TPG slabbed? Are both struck using the same dies as other pieces?
Imagine if Mark Hofmann said he did the 1943-D bronze cent? Would that possibility reduce the price of that coin?
And as mentioned above, all 5 1913 Liberty nickels were likely struck in one session, so I'd consider them to be in the same situation.