Likely candidate for ebay counterfeit Lincoln

jesbroken

This 1914 D Lincoln Cent is surely counterfeit. Your opinion please. I'll list the website below. I contacted the seller and explained that the date appeared to be a modified 1944 D and should be removed.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/265543441367?hash=item3dd39f5bd7:g:m2gAAOSwjmdiBUXm
Jim

LanceNewmanOCC

link

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Steven59

Tough call on this one - it may just be from wear that makes it look counterfeit?

FlyingAl

I think this one is fine IMO. Mint mark seems to match the number 5 position form the charts on the forums and the second 1 would be much farther away if it was an altered ‘44. I think it’s just heavy wear and some cleaning which makes it look fake.

MarkKelley

I think you're wrong on this one. It looks fine to me.

jesbroken

Yeah, I spoke to the seller and apologized if wrong, but I still think the 1 is too high and does not match the first one. It could be the damage that is causing the look and if so, my bad. I didn't report it to ebay until I heard on here. The seller removed it not because of the message I sent him, but because he said he had not noticed the damage and wanted to rewrite it to include info regarding damage.
Jim

MarkKelley

Something I have not seen mentioned here: the coin just has the right "look" of an early Lincoln, with a thick design rim. Over the years as the master hub is used thousands of times, it wears. This wear results in the hub spreading out and the entire design getting slightly larger. This is most easily seen in 1968 (the last year this hub was used) with the motto spilling off the edge of the coin, leaving practically no rim. The effect is not as severe in 1944, but it is noticeable. I can tell a 1940's Lincoln from one in the teens without looking at the date. This goes for Mercury dimes and Walking Liberty halves as well.

MarkW63

Damaged!
On all the altered 44-D's I've seen the mint mark will be near centered the LARGE gap between the 9 and the 1.
The mint mark location on this one is pretty far beneath the 9 as it should be on a genuine 14-D.
Lastly, the font style of the mint mark appears to be correct for a 14-D, the mint mark style of the 44-D is different.
I'm going with Genuine, damaged.

MarkW63

Here is an example of a altered 44-D
Notice the WIDE gap between the 9 and the 1?
Look how fat and open the style of the mint mark is?
Notice how the mint mark looks to have just dropped down out of the gap in the numbers?

moursund

@MarkKelley said:
Something I have not seen mentioned here: the coin just has the right "look" of an early Lincoln, with a thick design rim. Over the years as the master hub is used thousands of times, it wears. This wear results in the hub spreading out and the entire design getting slightly larger. This is most easily seen in 1968 (the last year this hub was used) with the motto spilling off the edge of the coin, leaving practically no rim. The effect is not as severe in 1944, but it is noticeable. I can tell a 1940's Lincoln from one in the teens without looking at the date. This goes for Mercury dimes and Walking Liberty halves as well.

That... is... BRILLIANT!

ricko

That looks like a genuine '14D cent... the 1 appears to have some circ damage....Cheers, RickO

burfle23

My altered date as well:

jesbroken

What caught my attention was that without the damaged piece the 2nd "1" is thinner, taller and further from the 9. My bad.
Jim

seanq

Not an altered date - the style of the last 4 is correct, the date spacing is correct, and there is no VDB on the shoulder. Probably just a heavily circulated and dinged up genuine article.

Sean Reynolds