@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.
@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?
Gut feeling doesn't offer an explanation.
I wonder if it's that no one is willing to go against Matt Hofmann.
Other that the US government that is, which said they don't believe him.
@amwldcoin said:
The 43-D Bronze cent is a different can of worms since it's an off metal strike likely from a previous years planchet hiding in the planchet bin.
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.
The 1943-D bronze cent was owned by a Denver Mint employee which leads to the theory it was a clandestine strike.
The 1943D Bronze cent was owned by a former Denver Mint employee who is believed to have struck it. This coin has the strongest strike of any 1943 bronze cent. Speculation has it that the person hand fed a bronze planchet into the coining press, struck it twice to bring up the design, then kept it.
I still think it would be much harder to condemn the 43-D than the 59-D. And besides, even if a mint employee did make the 43-D it for sure came out of the mint! I bet there are hundreds of accepted wild mint errors that would carry the same tale and status as the 43-D!
@amwldcoin said:
The 43-D Bronze cent is a different can of worms since it's an off metal strike likely from a previous years planchet hiding in the planchet bin.
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.
The theory seems to be it's a clandestine strike as it was owned by a Mint employee.
The 1943D Bronze cent was owned by a former Denver Mint employee who is believed to have struck it. This coin has the strongest strike of any 1943 bronze cent. Speculation has it that the person hand fed a bronze planchet into the coining press, struck it twice to bring up the design, then kept it.
@amwldcoin said:
I still think it would be much harder to condemn the 43-D than the 59-D. And besides, even if a mint employee did make the 43-D it for sure came out of the mint! I bet there are hundreds of accepted wild mint errors that would carry the same tale and status as the 43-D!
@amwldcoin said:
The 43-D Bronze cent is a different can of worms since it's an off metal strike likely from a previous years planchet hiding in the planchet bin.
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.
The theory seems to be it's a clandestine strike as it was owned by a Mint employee.
The 1943D Bronze cent was owned by a former Denver Mint employee who is believed to have struck it. This coin has the strongest strike of any 1943 bronze cent. Speculation has it that the person hand fed a bronze planchet into the coining press, struck it twice to bring up the design, then kept it.
An interesting commentary on the unique nature of this coin is that counterfeits have gotten so good that some can only be identified when the same markers show up in multiple specimens.
In such a world, we will see more unique coins go uncertified?
@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?
My gut feeling is based in part upon my prior examination of the 1959 wheat cent under a microscope, which led me to believe that that date was altered. I did not have that opportunity with the 1959-D wheat cent, and I phrased my comment accordingly.
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.
@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?
Gut feeling doesn't offer an explanation.
I wonder if it's that no one is willing to go against Matt Hofmann.
Other that the US government that is, which said they don't believe him.
Honestly, what would Hofmann's motive be for lying about it? People don't usually confess to crimes they didn't commit. Ocassionally, they do, but in his case he already was a well known...er..."creator" of artifacts. There's no need for him to try to bolster his reputation or criminal record.
I'm wondering if there are mint records that could explain if they had both sets of dies at the Denver mint at the same time. (Wheat back and Memorial)
Or if they took precautions to prevent mulings by removing/destroying the wheat backs before introducing the Memorial Reverse.
I'm guessing this has already been researched.
Another point:
Why not let the Mint examine it today??? I would think this is the logical move unless the present owner is skeptical that:
A. It would be dispelled or
B. It would be confiscated
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
@DCW said:
I'm wondering if there are mint records that could explain if they had both sets of dies at the Denver mint at the same time. (Wheat back and Memorial)
The mint director said that all 1964 Peace dollars were destroyed. Some years later, it was found that a couple still existed.
@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?
My gut feeling is based in part upon my prior examination of the 1959 wheat cent under a microscope, which led me to believe that that date was altered. I did not have that opportunity with the 1959-D wheat cent, and I phrased my comment accordingly.
@DCW said:
I'm wondering if there are mint records that could explain if they had both sets of dies at the Denver mint at the same time. (Wheat back and Memorial)
The mint director said that all 1964 Peace dollars were destroyed. Some years later, it was found that a couple still existed.
So much for mint records, I guess.
Ah, when were any 1964 Peace dollars found? To my knowledge, none are known to exist.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
@DCW said:
I'm wondering if there are mint records that could explain if they had both sets of dies at the Denver mint at the same time. (Wheat back and Memorial)
The mint director said that all 1964 Peace dollars were destroyed. Some years later, it was found that a couple still existed.
So much for mint records, I guess.
Ah, when were any 1964 Peace dollars found? To my knowledge, none are known to exist.
A set of 30 test pieces were struck, two of which were sent to Washington and were the two that surfaced.
Jaime Hernandez wrote:
As time went by, there were rumors that some 1964-D Peace dollars had escaped the U.S. Mint. Eva Adams was under a lot of scrutiny and when asked whether any of these coins existed, her response was that they were all melted. However, years later according to Mint records, two test strikes resurfaced. The two coins that surfaced were apparently from the 30 test pieces that were sent to Washington for inspection. Those two coins remained in the Treasury Vault until 1970 but were immediately destroyed by the U.S. Mint as soon as they were discovered.
@DCW said:
I'm wondering if there are mint records that could explain if they had both sets of dies at the Denver mint at the same time. (Wheat back and Memorial)
The mint director said that all 1964 Peace dollars were destroyed. Some years later, it was found that a couple still existed.
So much for mint records, I guess.
Ah, when were any 1964 Peace dollars found? To my knowledge, none are known to exist.
As time went by, there were rumors that some 1964-D Peace dollars had escaped the U.S. Mint. Eva Adams was under a lot of scrutiny and when asked whether any of these coins existed, her response was that they were all melted. However, years later according to Mint records, two test strikes resurfaced. The two coins that surfaced were apparently from the 30 test pieces that were sent to Washington for inspection. Those two coins remained in the Treasury Vault until 1970 but were immediately destroyed by the U.S. Mint as soon as they were discovered.
So, we are depending on the same mint records stating that two surfaced as the ones that stated all were destroyed?
If true, this is a real shame that they didn't just go to the Smithsonian. At least take pictures, sheesh.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
@DCW said:
So, we are depending on the same mint records stating that two surfaced as the ones that stated all were destroyed?
If true, this is a real shame that they didn't just go to the Smithsonian. At least take pictures, sheesh.
The 70s were a dry time. None of Frank Gasparro's 1977 Lady Liberty patterns were retained as wel.
Is it possible that Mr. Baller used the same time machine that Mr. Brown used? That could explain how such a coin could have been fabricated at the Mint back in '59.
@thefinn said:
It should be considered a token like Dan Carr’s overstrikes until/if proven legitimate.
How would you propose that be done?
The hobby would need to come to a consensus to redefine token to be a synonym of counterfeit.
But then what do we call tokens? Chips of trade?
Maybe we could call them infrastructure and get a grant.
ANACS calls Dan Carr’s pieces towns, even though they are overstruck coins. Looks like consistency needs to start there.
"towns?"
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.
@CoinscratchFever said:
Is it possible that Mr. Baller used the same time machine that Mr. Brown used? That could explain how such a coin could have been fabricated at the Mint back in '59.
Nobody caught on to this or just don’t mind the typo? I thought it was interesting how was inspected in 1987 and then returned in 1986
@Zoins said:
Perhaps the TPGs really think it's fake but won't say so because the US Government says it's real?
How strange would it be to say something is fake when the US Government says it's real?
Back when I was Senior Authenticator at ANACS this would not have affected my call. Heck, one year we had a Secret Service Agent take the Summer Seminar Counterfeit Detection Course I was teaching, so I think I knew at least as much as they did.
I doubt that it would stop any TPG from calling it as they see it, IF they can make the call. It's a tough coin to make a call on.
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.
@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?
Perhaps I can provide you a more responsive answer.
Charles Larson authored a book titled, "Numismatic Forgery" published in 2004. H. Robet Campbell, a past president of the American Numismatic Association, in the book's Foreword specifically stated the following:
"Recently the numismatic press has been focusing on whether the spectacular so-called 'transitional error' of a 1959-D United States Cent with a (1909-1958) wheatback reverse is a genuine , mint-produced article or counterfeit."
He goes on to explain that his erroneous assumptions as to how it might have been produced (spark erosion) were corrected after learning from information related by Larson in his book that followed from forger Mark Hoffman's disclosing in a letter to his daughter that he made it from a process then known only to himself.
The information gleaned by author Larson was as a consequence of many conversations with Mark Hoffman in subsequent years when he was his night guard in prison. In addition Larson obtained the electroplating equipment that Hoffman had used along with a. nearly empty bottle of nickel electrolytic plating solution. In the book itself there is a chapter titled, "Methods of Forgery:Creating Dies" and it includes a subsection explaining how to create dies by plating.
Elaborating on Larson's discussion of the use of electroplating to make dies the following excerpt from his writing is instructive:
"[Electroplating] is so accurate that each set of dies ends up being an exact, custom, glove-like fit to the specific coin that is used to create them - right down to the tiniest scratch, nick, bruise, and lint mark."
He goes on to explain how small alterations such as mint marks can be incorporated into the die itself and end up being undetectable as having been added to the resulting coin. He also describes how it is likely that such dies would only be used to make a single coin before being destroyed. Implied, but not said, is that the coins from which the dies were made can then be destroyed as well so there will be no matching coins with the same "scratch, nick, bruise or lint mark." This modus operandi also avoids multiples to be compared resulting in detection.
In view of the above, it is consistent that there has only been one 1959-D United States Cent with a wheat back reverse known to be existent.
@1northcoin said:
Elaborating on Larson's discussion of the use of electroplating to make dies the following excerpt from his writing is instructive:
"[Electroplating] is so accurate that each set of dies ends up being an exact, custom, glove-like fit to the specific coin that is used to create them - right down to the tiniest scratch, nick, bruise, and lint mark."
He goes on to explain how small alterations such as mint marks can be incorporated into the die itself and end up being undetectable as having been added to the resulting coin. He also describes how it is likely that such dies would only be used to make a single coin before being destroyed. Implied, but not said, is that the coins from which the dies were made can then be destroyed as well so there will be no matching coins with the same "scratch, nick, bruise or lint mark." This modus operandi also avoids multiples to be compared resulting in detection.
In view of the above, it is consistent that there has only been one 1959-D United States Cent with a wheat back reverse known to be existent.
I wonder if this was the technique used by Paul Gerow Franklin and John Jay Ford Jr's Massapequa Mint? Their counterfeits were considered pretty good.
"doubts about its authenticity? It seems pretty awkward to me..."
Maybe the buyer and the seller could team up for the facts of its story.
Keep in mind the agreement between buyer and seller should still stand.
On the flip side, do auction houses help find the facts?
Frank Gasparro is noted in David Langes Lincoln Cent book about this coin. The gist of it is that it would have been nearly impossible to get into the die locker. He was very adamant on the subject.
He was there in 1958/9.
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
@BuffaloIronTail said:
Frank Gasparro is noted in David Langes Lincoln Cent book about this coin. The gist of it is that it would have been nearly impossible to get into the die locker. He was very adamant on the subject.
He was there in 1958/9.
Pete
Nearly impossible isn't the same as impossible. What was in the difference?
@BuffaloIronTail said:
Frank Gasparro is noted in David Langes Lincoln Cent book about this coin. The gist of it is that it would have been nearly impossible to get into the die locker. He was very adamant on the subject.
He was there in 1958/9.
Pete
Nearly impossible isn't the same as impossible. What was in the difference?
Point well taken. Now let's set up and strike a single coin and put the dies back.................
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
@BuffaloIronTail said:
Frank Gasparro is noted in David Langes Lincoln Cent book about this coin. The gist of it is that it would have been nearly impossible to get into the die locker. He was very adamant on the subject.
He was there in 1958/9.
Pete
Nearly impossible isn't the same as impossible. What was in the difference?
Point well taken. Now let's set up and strike a single coin and put the dies back.................
Pete
Granted it may be difficult, but it's not like there's one for multiple years.
@BuffaloIronTail said:
Frank Gasparro is noted in David Langes Lincoln Cent book about this coin. The gist of it is that it would have been nearly impossible to get into the die locker. He was very adamant on the subject.
He was there in 1958/9.
Pete
Nearly impossible isn't the same as impossible. What was in the difference?
Point well taken. Now let's set up and strike a single coin and put the dies back.................
Pete
Granted it may be difficult, but it's not like there's one for multiple years.
I get your point. Anything could happen in reality. That's a given.
The echos of 1913 keep running through my head.
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
@BuffaloIronTail said:
Frank Gasparro is noted in David Langes Lincoln Cent book about this coin. The gist of it is that it would have been nearly impossible to get into the die locker. He was very adamant on the subject.
He was there in 1958/9.
Pete
Nearly impossible isn't the same as impossible. What was in the difference?
Point well taken. Now let's set up and strike a single coin and put the dies back.................
Pete
Granted it may be difficult, but it's not like there's one for multiple years.
I get your point. Anything could happen in reality. That's a given.
The echos of 1913 keep running through my head.
Pete
Yes, although the back door stuff was common in 1913 and not so common in 1959. I don't know if they changed things as a result of the 1933 DE fiasco or what, but there seems to have been far fewer Mint shenanigans after the War.
Comments
It's like no one can imagine quality control actually working...but they missed one.
I'd believe the mint. They make all the coins, I am sure they know what they are looking at.
I was being facetious.
The Mint has not rendered an opinion on the coin
Agreed. The only the US government rendered opinions are from:
Would the Mint even have the best counterfeit detectors? Is counterfeit detection part of anyone's job description at the Mint?
Some coins just give you that gut feeling!
The 43-D Bronze cent is a different can of worms since it's an off metal strike likely from a previous years planchet hiding in the planchet bin.
Gut feeling doesn't offer an explanation.
I wonder if it's that no one is willing to go against Matt Hofmann.
Other that the US government that is, which said they don't believe him.
The 1943-D bronze cent was owned by a Denver Mint employee which leads to the theory it was a clandestine strike.
The following is from Ron:
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1943-d-1c-bronze-bn/82712
It's curious that this is the only coin with such a strong strike.
In this case, could it just as well be a fake made by Matt Hofmann?
I still think it would be much harder to condemn the 43-D than the 59-D. And besides, even if a mint employee did make the 43-D it for sure came out of the mint! I bet there are hundreds of accepted wild mint errors that would carry the same tale and status as the 43-D!
Could the Mint employee have gotten it from Matt Hofmann
Is that enough to certify one coin and not another?
In this case, it seems like it's about the story / provenance, not the coin itself
An interesting commentary on the unique nature of this coin is that counterfeits have gotten so good that some can only be identified when the same markers show up in multiple specimens.
In such a world, we will see more unique coins go uncertified?
My gut feeling is based in part upon my prior examination of the 1959 wheat cent under a microscope, which led me to believe that that date was altered. I did not have that opportunity with the 1959-D wheat cent, and I phrased my comment accordingly.
Honestly, what would Hofmann's motive be for lying about it? People don't usually confess to crimes they didn't commit. Ocassionally, they do, but in his case he already was a well known...er..."creator" of artifacts. There's no need for him to try to bolster his reputation or criminal record.
I'm wondering if there are mint records that could explain if they had both sets of dies at the Denver mint at the same time. (Wheat back and Memorial)
Or if they took precautions to prevent mulings by removing/destroying the wheat backs before introducing the Memorial Reverse.
I'm guessing this has already been researched.
Another point:
Why not let the Mint examine it today??? I would think this is the logical move unless the present owner is skeptical that:
A. It would be dispelled or
B. It would be confiscated
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
The mint director said that all 1964 Peace dollars were destroyed. Some years later, it was found that a couple still existed.
So much for mint records, I guess.
Interesting thread. 👍
My YouTube Channel
Thanks for the clarification.
Ah, when were any 1964 Peace dollars found? To my knowledge, none are known to exist.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
A set of 30 test pieces were struck, two of which were sent to Washington and were the two that surfaced.
https://www.pcgs.com/news/1964-d-peace-dollars-do-they-really-exist
As time went by, there were rumors that some 1964-D Peace dollars had escaped the U.S. Mint. Eva Adams was under a lot of scrutiny and when asked whether any of these coins existed, her response was that they were all melted. However, years later according to Mint records, two test strikes resurfaced. The two coins that surfaced were apparently from the 30 test pieces that were sent to Washington for inspection. Those two coins remained in the Treasury Vault until 1970 but were immediately destroyed by the U.S. Mint as soon as they were discovered.
https://www.pcgs.com/news/1964-d-peace-dollars-do-they-really-exist
So, we are depending on the same mint records stating that two surfaced as the ones that stated all were destroyed?
If true, this is a real shame that they didn't just go to the Smithsonian. At least take pictures, sheesh.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
The 70s were a dry time. None of Frank Gasparro's 1977 Lady Liberty patterns were retained as wel.
Speak for yourself!
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
Personally, I'd be willing to take mint records as a starting point but not a final determination.
I really hope one still exists. It would be quite an event if one pops up. Didn't PCGS offer a big reward to certify one?
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
My only comment about the coin is that it sure is very well struck compared to regular 1958-1959 Cents.
Pete
ANACS calls Dan Carr’s pieces towns, even though they are overstruck coins. Looks like consistency needs to start there.
Is it possible that Mr. Baller used the same time machine that Mr. Brown used? That could explain how such a coin could have been fabricated at the Mint back in '59.
"towns?"
I think "tokens" with an autocorrect.
Nobody?
Perhaps the TPGs really think it's fake but won't say so because the US Government says it's real?
How strange would it be to say something is fake when the US Government says it's real?
Nobody caught on to this or just don’t mind the typo? I thought it was interesting how was inspected in 1987 and then returned in 1986
Back when I was Senior Authenticator at ANACS this would not have affected my call. Heck, one year we had a Secret Service Agent take the Summer Seminar Counterfeit Detection Course I was teaching, so I think I knew at least as much as they did.
I doubt that it would stop any TPG from calling it as they see it, IF they can make the call. It's a tough coin to make a call on.
Perhaps I can provide you a more responsive answer.
Charles Larson authored a book titled, "Numismatic Forgery" published in 2004. H. Robet Campbell, a past president of the American Numismatic Association, in the book's Foreword specifically stated the following:
"Recently the numismatic press has been focusing on whether the spectacular so-called 'transitional error' of a 1959-D United States Cent with a (1909-1958) wheatback reverse is a genuine , mint-produced article or counterfeit."
He goes on to explain that his erroneous assumptions as to how it might have been produced (spark erosion) were corrected after learning from information related by Larson in his book that followed from forger Mark Hoffman's disclosing in a letter to his daughter that he made it from a process then known only to himself.
The information gleaned by author Larson was as a consequence of many conversations with Mark Hoffman in subsequent years when he was his night guard in prison. In addition Larson obtained the electroplating equipment that Hoffman had used along with a. nearly empty bottle of nickel electrolytic plating solution. In the book itself there is a chapter titled, "Methods of Forgery:Creating Dies" and it includes a subsection explaining how to create dies by plating.
Elaborating on Larson's discussion of the use of electroplating to make dies the following excerpt from his writing is instructive:
"[Electroplating] is so accurate that each set of dies ends up being an exact, custom, glove-like fit to the specific coin that is used to create them - right down to the tiniest scratch, nick, bruise, and lint mark."
He goes on to explain how small alterations such as mint marks can be incorporated into the die itself and end up being undetectable as having been added to the resulting coin. He also describes how it is likely that such dies would only be used to make a single coin before being destroyed. Implied, but not said, is that the coins from which the dies were made can then be destroyed as well so there will be no matching coins with the same "scratch, nick, bruise or lint mark." This modus operandi also avoids multiples to be compared resulting in detection.
In view of the above, it is consistent that there has only been one 1959-D United States Cent with a wheat back reverse known to be existent.
I love auto-correct.
I wonder if this was the technique used by Paul Gerow Franklin and John Jay Ford Jr's Massapequa Mint? Their counterfeits were considered pretty good.
Has Dan commented on this? IMO - just looking at the coin it is a fake. Dan - this would be a good seller. just add an S mint mark.
"doubts about its authenticity? It seems pretty awkward to me..."
Maybe the buyer and the seller could team up for the facts of its story.
Keep in mind the agreement between buyer and seller should still stand.
On the flip side, do auction houses help find the facts?
ANACS stopped being relevant 20 years ago. New ANACS has no where near the credentials and market acceptance of older iterations.
Is that when they became the new ICG?
Or is that when @CaptHenway stopped working for them?
>
It’s decline began before that, but that was the final straw.
You want him to make a counterfeit of a counterfeit????
Frank Gasparro is noted in David Langes Lincoln Cent book about this coin. The gist of it is that it would have been nearly impossible to get into the die locker. He was very adamant on the subject.
He was there in 1958/9.
Pete
Nearly impossible isn't the same as impossible. What was in the difference?
Point well taken. Now let's set up and strike a single coin and put the dies back.................
Pete
Granted it may be difficult, but it's not like there's one for multiple years.
I get your point. Anything could happen in reality. That's a given.
The echos of 1913 keep running through my head.
Pete
Yes, although the back door stuff was common in 1913 and not so common in 1959. I don't know if they changed things as a result of the 1933 DE fiasco or what, but there seems to have been far fewer Mint shenanigans after the War.