@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.
@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.
@1northcoin said:
I see @UrbanDecay04 has changed his username. Anyone know if that explains his not being notified through the alert system on this board?
Don't know, but someone was recently asking if changing a username was possible. Looks like it is?
@1northcoin said:
I see @UrbanDecay04 has changed his username. Anyone know if that explains his not being notified through the alert system on this board?
Don't know, but someone was recently asking if changing a username was possible. Looks like it is?
That's why they asked. But the poster formerly known as DarkRage666 was forced to change his name by PCGS due to complaints. He didn't change it himself.
Comments
You do not?
Lol. Not really, no.
@UrbanDecay04
Was this helpful?
I see @UrbanDecay04 has changed his username. Anyone know if that explains his not being notified through the alert system on this board?
Don't know, but someone was recently asking if changing a username was possible. Looks like it is?
That's why they asked. But the poster formerly known as DarkRage666 was forced to change his name by PCGS due to complaints. He didn't change it himself.
Dang - I would pay for one. To each their own.