@yosclimber said:
I don't see why the cluster of 3 raised dots suggests a die transfer.
Those are more likely caused by pits / gouges on the original die,
and appear in both photos because the original coin is the same.
Raised dots in fields often suggest counterfeits in many cases, it's right up there with tool marks. The mint would likely not allow pits/gouges in that area and would send the die to be resurfaced and repaired before further use. I do think you probably knew this though.
Yes, I've seen photos of many coins made from dies with rust pits.
The extreme example is the 1838 V-1 and V-2 "small stars" half dime, which I call "rusty arm".
Eventually the mint lapped the die which fixed the fields a bit, but it did not fix the pits in the lower parts of the die.
I agree that smaller and widespread raised dots in the fields are a feature of cast counterfeits.
The extreme example is the 1838 V-1 and V-2 "small stars" half dime, which I call "rusty arm".
Eventually the mint lapped the die which fixed the fields a bit, but it did not fix the pits in the lower parts of the die.
I agree that smaller and widespread raised dots in the fields are a feature of cast counterfeits.
Ok, so we are both on the same page. Without any sign of other extreme die wear or other evidence that this was a rusted die of some sort, I'm inclined to choose counterfeit rather than a rusty die or equivalent. While it's possible this is not a counterfeit, it's unlikely and either way, the coin would have been heavily altered. I do also think it would be easier for the counterfeiter/alterer to fix the damage on a die than the coin itself.
Honest to goodness, of all of the die transfer counterfeits that I have seen over the years, the forgers always seem to get lazy while retooling the denticles.
It is like it is an afterthought to them, like "who's going to look that closely?"
By the way, the cost associated to preparing transfer dies and making this type of counterfeit is roughly in the $10K range. Just saying for the bean counters on this forum.
@yosclimber said:
I don't see why the cluster of 3 raised dots suggests a die transfer.
Those are more likely caused by pits / gouges on the original die,
and appear in both photos because the original coin is the same.
If the 3 raised dots were on both coins as you suggest, I would be inclined to agree that the coins are the same. However, I don't see the raised dots on the Heritage coin. In the case of a struck copy from dies made from the original (scratched) piece, the scratched piece would have "post-strike" pits/gouges that would be transferred to the counterfeit dies, resulting in raised dots or gouges on any coin struck from them. The assumption here is that the Heritage coin has the pits / gouges, not the die itself.
For those who still think this is a different original coin: Consider there are maybe 100 total examples of this date known to exist. You could fit in your hand the number of known examples that are similar grade to this one. This is very different from 1909-S VDB Cents or 1916-D Mercury Dimes where there are thousands still known. So the chances of all of these small marks existing on two genuine example is really about as close to zero as it gets. Here are 4 exact marks on the "two" coins.
Oh, there's a 5th exact mark at the tip of the lowest arrowhead.
So to me the debate now is only doctoring or counterfeit. Otherwise its a billion to one exception.
As much as I felt the denticles are different, the nicks seem to have it. Same coin. I feel the dots under the wing tip appeared after cleaning from under the black substance.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
@jesbroken said:
As much as I felt the denticles are different, the nicks seem to have it. Same coin. I feel the dots under the wing tip appeared after cleaning from under the black substance.
Jim
Those nicks would be on a transfer die as well though. And the raised dots are 100% an artifact of that process.
Professional Numismatist. "It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
Those nicks would be on a transfer die as well though. And the raised dots are 100% an artifact of that process.
@jesbroken, As @DelawareDoons stated, those marks are proof that the coin that recently sold for $16K is a die transfer counterfeit of the Heritage coin. The raised surface defects just make it a slam dunk.
@Victa said: @yosclimber said:
I don't see why the cluster of 3 raised dots suggests a die transfer.
Those are more likely caused by pits / gouges on the original die,
and appear in both photos because the original coin is the same.
If the 3 raised dots were on both coins as you suggest, I would be inclined to agree that the coins are the same. However, I don't see the raised dots on the Heritage coin. ...
I also don't seem them on the Heritage coin.
However, the Heritage coin is toned in those areas (under the left wing, and above the dentils below that).
The altered coin has less toning, like as I noted between the dentils under the date.
So I misspoke about them appearing on both photos.
But they might exist on the Heritage coin and not be visible due to the toning, as @jesbroken stated.
[Edit to add:]
I don't see the 3 raised dots on the mint state coin photos on PCGS CoinFacts (taken with diffuse lighting,
where raised features are sometimes hard to see)
or on Heritage.
I do see a small raised dot below the leftmost pair of leaves and just above a dentil, on high grade coins.
Sometimes I forget; I normally work with half dimes; these raised dots on a quarter are relatively very large.
@numisma said:
Questions for those who think that this is the same coin:
1) why would the "coin doctor" spend a tremendous amount of labor and skill to rework the denticles from 6 o'clock to 9 o'clock? Notice how all of the dentils in that area seem to flow to the right, whereas they should point to the center of the coin.
2) why did the dentilation magically grow longer on the purportedly reworked piece?
3) why would the "artisan" take the time to rework the "1" in the date, when the damage did not affect that part of the date?
This comparison seems wrong, because the lower photo is rotated clockwise, relative to the top photo.
Here is a comparison with both images straightened.
Your comparison of the dentil slopes on the left side was incorrect because of cleaning in the second photo
that obscured the spaces between the dentils.
The longer dentils might seem like a problem.
However, I think the dentils appear "wider" in the doctored coin due to cleaning between the dentils,
which makes them appear shorter.
Compare the apparent inter dentil spacing.
The features of the berry and stem are different in the 2nd coin in that the berry is bigger and the stem almost disappears just below the berry - consistent with transfer die?
@spacehayduke said:
The features of the berry and stem are different in the 2nd coin in that the berry is bigger and the stem almost disappears just below the berry - consistent with transfer die?
Yes, that is what happens to the small details on a die transfer counterfeit.
@LanceNewmanOCC said:
i'm so glad to see the conversation go this direction. i wanted to say something earlier but didn't have the energy to defend the point and we discuss a LOT of coins here and i wasn't up for running this one to ground and was saving time/energy for what may be posted next.
good job getting all the images, doing the legwork and coming up with the current theory. i would go for counterfeit before saying it is the same coin.
NOW that doesn't mean that the scratched coin isn't possible the source coin even. i briefly thought of that in light of what @burfle23 has posted.
btw burfle, do you have a space at the end of your name. not a big deal but when i @ you, it puts a space at the end.
No space at the end of my name...
I own several struck counterfeits made from repaired genuine source coins; several had holes and several had scratches that were repaired in the coin and smoothed in the dies as well. I need to take a closer look at the two posted here as well as take a quick look for any others out there that match these.
Will Heritage auction records be used to track the buyer and potentially the counterfeiter? If it is counterfeit, I would like to see the perpetrator pay in the harshest way possible. Legally of course!
The die transfer theory does not work because the altered coin still has remaining marks from the scratches. That would mean that the counterfeiter used the scratched coin as the die copy and made alterations to the scratches, then, made a die transfer copy. That is a lot of work to produce a counterfeit.
@slider23 said:
The die transfer theory does not work because the altered coin still has remaining marks from the scratches. That would mean that the counterfeiter used the scratched coin as the die copy and made alterations to the scratches, then, made a die transfer copy. That is a lot of work to produce a counterfeit.
It's a 5 figure counterfeit. Worth a little trouble, no?
@slider23 said:
The die transfer theory does not work because the altered coin still has remaining marks from the scratches. That would mean that the counterfeiter used the scratched coin as the die copy and made alterations to the scratches, then, made a die transfer copy. That is a lot of work to produce a counterfeit.
That's how they do it though. And the counterfeits are DAMN good and would fool 90% of collectors.
Professional Numismatist. "It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
@numisma said:
Questions for those who think that this is the same coin:
1) why would the "coin doctor" spend a tremendous amount of labor and skill to rework the denticles from 6 o'clock to 9 o'clock? Notice how all of the dentils in that area seem to flow to the right, whereas they should point to the center of the coin.
2) why did the dentilation magically grow longer on the purportedly reworked piece?
3) why would the "artisan" take the time to rework the "1" in the date, when the damage did not affect that part of the date?
This comparison seems wrong, because the lower photo is rotated clockwise, relative to the top photo.
Here is a comparison with both images straightened.
Your comparison of the dentil slopes on the left side was incorrect because of cleaning in the second photo
that obscured the spaces between the dentils.
The longer dentils might seem like a problem.
However, I think the dentils appear "wider" in the doctored coin due to cleaning between the dentils,
which makes them appear shorter.
Compare the apparent inter dentil spacing.
But why is the second one a different shape?
(MS-65 photo from PCGS CoinFacts - this James A. Stack coin sold for $352k from the Gardner collection in 2014)
The second 1 in the date is a different shape in lower grades, because the only known obverse has a twice-repunched date. (A gang punch of all 4 digits is used on all but the earliest seated coins). https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1871-cc-25c/5479
Love this discussion, it is very educational for collectors to learn what to watch out for.. Hopefully we're able to confirm if it is counterfeit or doctored.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
@numisma said:
Questions for those who think that this is the same coin:
1) why would the "coin doctor" spend a tremendous amount of labor and skill to rework the denticles from 6 o'clock to 9 o'clock? Notice how all of the dentils in that area seem to flow to the right, whereas they should point to the center of the coin.
2) why did the dentilation magically grow longer on the purportedly reworked piece?
3) why would the "artisan" take the time to rework the "1" in the date, when the damage did not affect that part of the date?
This comparison seems wrong, because the lower photo is rotated clockwise, relative to the top photo.
Here is a comparison with both images straightened.
Your comparison of the dentil slopes on the left side was incorrect because of cleaning in the second photo
that obscured the spaces between the dentils.
The longer dentils might seem like a problem.
However, I think the dentils appear "wider" in the doctored coin due to cleaning between the dentils,
which makes them appear shorter.
Compare the apparent inter dentil spacing.
But why is the second one a
(MS-65 photo from PCGS CoinFacts - this James A. Stack coin sold for $352k from the Gardner collection in 2014)
The second 1 in the date is a different shape in lower grades, because the only known obverse has a twice-repunched date. (A gang punch of all 4 digits is used on all but the earliest seated
I'm talking about the difference between the two coins, not the difference between the 1st and 2nd one in the date.
I have no doubt that it's the same coin that's been worked on. The biggest red flag is this coin is raw. It's rare for a coin in this price range and rarity to be sold without first being slabbed by a major grading service.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
@Crypto said:
Toning removed do the heat required to move metal to hide the work. Clearly the same coin. Shame it had an overall pleasing look for a problem coin
Metal can be moved and smoothed without heat but agree the toning had to be removed to hide the repair.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
@burfle23 said:
Interestingly the coin was removed from the PCGS holder and sent to SEGS prior to an August 2021 auction listing...
.
just because the info is kinda scattered throughout this thread, across 2 pages (so far).
the pcgs coin that went to heritage 2x with the scratches (the darker coin)
2-3-2019
6-20-2021
realgator said: - "was sold raw on Saturday by Gold Standrd Auctions on Proxibid" - this is the one without the scratches.
was not in a pcgs holder (that we know of) unless i am missing something here.
the image above my post here, i thought had potentially both coins in it but i now see the big images are just the scratched coin with overexposed images while the segs image is more accurate albeit significantly smaller.
Notice the coins (overlaid) line up from about 9 o'clock to 12.
When I rotate one coin a bit, they line up well including the denticles from about 1 o'clock to 5. If I rotate more the bottom denticles and date seem to match about perfectly, as does the rest of the center of the design.
The photos were not taken at the exact same angle so about a 3rd of the coins line up at one time.
But basically they seem to line up perfectly without having to take it too far in Photoshop.
Overlaid...
Coins are Neato!
"If it's a penny for your thoughts and you put in your two cents worth, then someone...somewhere...is making a penny." - Steven Wright
@yosclimber said:
Why overlay photos when one is rotated?
Here are the straightened photos if you'd like to overlay.
Because they don't line up perfectly. The images are at slightly different angles.
I would've needed to do some custom distortions to one of the images to make them line up perfectly.
Rotating the overlay slightly one bit at a time allowed me to check how the whole coins line up.
Also I don't do free consulting, much
Here are the rotated images you provided overlaid...
Look closely, even the Date is not lined up.
But things are lined up at about 7 o'clock and about 1-3 o'clock.
Coins are Neato!
"If it's a penny for your thoughts and you put in your two cents worth, then someone...somewhere...is making a penny." - Steven Wright
@yosclimber said:
Why overlay photos when one is rotated?
Here are the straightened photos if you'd like to overlay.
I'll clarify it slightly differently... The photos of the coins were taken from slightly different perspectives, angles and distance and likely the type of lens and camera.
So straightening the entire image does not fix the issue. Rotating an image is included in my PS skill-set
Coins are Neato!
"If it's a penny for your thoughts and you put in your two cents worth, then someone...somewhere...is making a penny." - Steven Wright
Comments
Yes, I've seen photos of many coins made from dies with rust pits.
The extreme example is the 1838 V-1 and V-2 "small stars" half dime, which I call "rusty arm".
Eventually the mint lapped the die which fixed the fields a bit, but it did not fix the pits in the lower parts of the die.
I agree that smaller and widespread raised dots in the fields are a feature of cast counterfeits.
I was originally in the "same coin" camp until I saw the raised dots. One to one counterfeit.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
Ok, so we are both on the same page. Without any sign of other extreme die wear or other evidence that this was a rusted die of some sort, I'm inclined to choose counterfeit rather than a rusty die or equivalent. While it's possible this is not a counterfeit, it's unlikely and either way, the coin would have been heavily altered. I do also think it would be easier for the counterfeiter/alterer to fix the damage on a die than the coin itself.
Coin Photographer.
Yeah, I agree this is a die transfer counterfeit after seeing the reverse.
Professional Numismatist. "It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
Honest to goodness, of all of the die transfer counterfeits that I have seen over the years, the forgers always seem to get lazy while retooling the denticles.
It is like it is an afterthought to them, like "who's going to look that closely?"
By the way, the cost associated to preparing transfer dies and making this type of counterfeit is roughly in the $10K range. Just saying for the bean counters on this forum.
I have to agree as I had not really considered counterfeit.
Tom
@yosclimber said:
I don't see why the cluster of 3 raised dots suggests a die transfer.
Those are more likely caused by pits / gouges on the original die,
and appear in both photos because the original coin is the same.
If the 3 raised dots were on both coins as you suggest, I would be inclined to agree that the coins are the same. However, I don't see the raised dots on the Heritage coin. In the case of a struck copy from dies made from the original (scratched) piece, the scratched piece would have "post-strike" pits/gouges that would be transferred to the counterfeit dies, resulting in raised dots or gouges on any coin struck from them. The assumption here is that the Heritage coin has the pits / gouges, not the die itself.
The pics are just not good enough to claim transfer die counterfeit IMO.
For those who still think this is a different original coin: Consider there are maybe 100 total examples of this date known to exist. You could fit in your hand the number of known examples that are similar grade to this one. This is very different from 1909-S VDB Cents or 1916-D Mercury Dimes where there are thousands still known. So the chances of all of these small marks existing on two genuine example is really about as close to zero as it gets. Here are 4 exact marks on the "two" coins.
Oh, there's a 5th exact mark at the tip of the lowest arrowhead.
So to me the debate now is only doctoring or counterfeit. Otherwise its a billion to one exception.
$16K coin:
Wow good call guys! Scary stuff.
As much as I felt the denticles are different, the nicks seem to have it. Same coin. I feel the dots under the wing tip appeared after cleaning from under the black substance.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
Those nicks would be on a transfer die as well though. And the raised dots are 100% an artifact of that process.
Professional Numismatist. "It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
Those nicks would be on a transfer die as well though. And the raised dots are 100% an artifact of that process.
@jesbroken, As @DelawareDoons stated, those marks are proof that the coin that recently sold for $16K is a die transfer counterfeit of the Heritage coin. The raised surface defects just make it a slam dunk.
Yes, I agree. Thank you, as I was not familiar with this type of counterfeiting. I read the NGC article and feel you guys are correct.
Jim
https://coinsweekly.com/ngc-shows-how-to-detect-transfer-die-forgeries/
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
I also don't seem them on the Heritage coin.
However, the Heritage coin is toned in those areas (under the left wing, and above the dentils below that).
The altered coin has less toning, like as I noted between the dentils under the date.
So I misspoke about them appearing on both photos.
But they might exist on the Heritage coin and not be visible due to the toning, as @jesbroken stated.
[Edit to add:]
I don't see the 3 raised dots on the mint state coin photos on PCGS CoinFacts (taken with diffuse lighting,
where raised features are sometimes hard to see)
or on Heritage.
I do see a small raised dot below the leftmost pair of leaves and just above a dentil, on high grade coins.
Sometimes I forget; I normally work with half dimes; these raised dots on a quarter are relatively very large.
But look at all the marks that don't line up.
But why is the second one a different shape?
The features of the berry and stem are different in the 2nd coin in that the berry is bigger and the stem almost disappears just below the berry - consistent with transfer die?
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
Yes, that is what happens to the small details on a die transfer counterfeit.
Be interesting to see if any more of these come dribbling out over the next few years. (hope not!)
No space at the end of my name...
I own several struck counterfeits made from repaired genuine source coins; several had holes and several had scratches that were repaired in the coin and smoothed in the dies as well. I need to take a closer look at the two posted here as well as take a quick look for any others out there that match these.
Will Heritage auction records be used to track the buyer and potentially the counterfeiter? If it is counterfeit, I would like to see the perpetrator pay in the harshest way possible. Legally of course!
Interesting; sold twice through Heritage:
The die transfer theory does not work because the altered coin still has remaining marks from the scratches. That would mean that the counterfeiter used the scratched coin as the die copy and made alterations to the scratches, then, made a die transfer copy. That is a lot of work to produce a counterfeit.
It's a 5 figure counterfeit. Worth a little trouble, no?
That's how they do it though. And the counterfeits are DAMN good and would fool 90% of collectors.
Professional Numismatist. "It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
(MS-65 photo from PCGS CoinFacts - this James A. Stack coin sold for $352k from the Gardner collection in 2014)
The second 1 in the date is a different shape in lower grades, because the only known obverse has a twice-repunched date. (A gang punch of all 4 digits is used on all but the earliest seated coins).
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1871-cc-25c/5479
Love this discussion, it is very educational for collectors to learn what to watch out for.. Hopefully we're able to confirm if it is counterfeit or doctored.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
I'm talking about the difference between the two coins, not the difference between the 1st and 2nd one in the date.
OK, can you be more specific about what in the second coin is a different shape?
Do I smell refund!
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun
I have no doubt that it's the same coin that's been worked on. The biggest red flag is this coin is raw. It's rare for a coin in this price range and rarity to be sold without first being slabbed by a major grading service.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Toning removed do the heat required to move metal to hide the work. Clearly the same coin. Shame it had an overall pleasing look for a problem coin
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
Metal can be moved and smoothed without heat but agree the toning had to be removed to hide the repair.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Just for reference, my genuine "repaired" source Huge O example on the left, same example prior to the repairs on the right:
Struck counterfeit from the dies made from the source:
My short Coin Week article:
https://coinweek.com/counterfeits/from-the-dark-corner-an-authenticated-counterfeit-1854-huge-o-liberty-seated-quarter/
Side by side images of the two 1871-CC's:
There's no doubt the one coin is counterfeit. Beyond that...
Interestingly the coin was removed from the PCGS holder and sent to SEGS prior to an August 2021 auction listing...
.
just because the info is kinda scattered throughout this thread, across 2 pages (so far).
the pcgs coin that went to heritage 2x with the scratches (the darker coin)
2-3-2019
6-20-2021
realgator said: - "was sold raw on Saturday by Gold Standrd Auctions on Proxibid" - this is the one without the scratches.
was not in a pcgs holder (that we know of) unless i am missing something here.
the image above my post here, i thought had potentially both coins in it but i now see the big images are just the scratched coin with overexposed images while the segs image is more accurate albeit significantly smaller.
Same coin or not, the one under suspicion sure had a lot of work done on it.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I did a simple Photoshop quickie...
Notice the coins (overlaid) line up from about 9 o'clock to 12.
When I rotate one coin a bit, they line up well including the denticles from about 1 o'clock to 5. If I rotate more the bottom denticles and date seem to match about perfectly, as does the rest of the center of the design.
The photos were not taken at the exact same angle so about a 3rd of the coins line up at one time.
But basically they seem to line up perfectly without having to take it too far in Photoshop.
Overlaid...
Coins are Neato!
"If it's a penny for your thoughts and you put in your two cents worth, then someone...somewhere...is making a penny." - Steven Wright
Why overlay photos when one is rotated?
Here are the straightened photos if you'd like to overlay.
Because they don't line up perfectly. The images are at slightly different angles.
I would've needed to do some custom distortions to one of the images to make them line up perfectly.
Rotating the overlay slightly one bit at a time allowed me to check how the whole coins line up.
Also I don't do free consulting, much
Here are the rotated images you provided overlaid...
Look closely, even the Date is not lined up.
But things are lined up at about 7 o'clock and about 1-3 o'clock.
Coins are Neato!
"If it's a penny for your thoughts and you put in your two cents worth, then someone...somewhere...is making a penny." - Steven Wright
I'll clarify it slightly differently... The photos of the coins were taken from slightly different perspectives, angles and distance and likely the type of lens and camera.
So straightening the entire image does not fix the issue. Rotating an image is included in my PS skill-set
Coins are Neato!
"If it's a penny for your thoughts and you put in your two cents worth, then someone...somewhere...is making a penny." - Steven Wright