@1630Boston said:
It's funny that the cert # is still valid on the web site
If the slab was indeed counterfeit, then those are almost always made using legit cert numbers that match whatever is in the counterfeit holder. Even if the tag is genuine, if it's not sent back to PCGS, the number stays in the database.
@cameonut2011 said:
On an interesting note, it is ironic that PCGS calls an altered coin counterfeit. It slabs Cart’s work. Added dates would seem to be in the same vein as added mint mark. Fictitious dates change nothing unless we give the Chinese a free pass on some of their most “creative” works.
That is a very good point. An altered coin is not a counterfeit coin.
@cameonut2011 are you referring to D. Carr? Apples and oranges. He's creating "coins" with dates and mintmarks that don't exist. They're fantasy pieces. Calling them altered or counterfeit is semantics. But making a coin from one real date and mintmark to another, while technically "altering," is also making a non-genuine version of the latter-dated/MM'd piece. A coin being represented as a 1916-D which is either not a D or not 1916 is not a genuine 1916-D. And among real 1916-Ds, the coin is certainly a counterfeit. What a can of worms PCGS would be opening if they began to grade all the key coins as just damaged as long as the host coin prior to alteration was a genuine example.
@AUandAG said:
There are two reasons I dip in Acetone every coin I get. One: fingerprints. Two: find added mintmarks.
I too, bought and expensive coin only to find out the mint marks were added (CC). It fooled me, and it's my series, but PCGS was not fooled. I think I sold it here on the board for my grading fees: $25 or so, for educational reasons.
bob
Good policy. But not foolproof. I imagine that anything we can do to protect ourselves is justified.
But the problem is, it's not a 100% protection. Acetone ain't gonna catch an embossed mintmark Buffalo.
Pete
Mine was two mint marks. C's..... Not something that I even dreamed of....gluing to C's to the back. I've had altered coins in the past but this went right by me...fortunately not by PCGS. Acetone may have discovered the ruse.
bob
Registry: CC lowballs (boblindstrom), bobinvegas1989@yahoo.com
Here’s my latest thoughts.
The slab insert is genuine, taken from a authentic 1916 D, G 06 slab. The authentic insert was placed in a counterfeit slab along with an “added mint mark” altered 1916 Dime. So if a buyer simply did a Cert. Verification, it would come up as a genuine coin. The scary part is that you now have to be wary of any higher value coin in a slab. Which begs the question, how many counterfeits are out there?
I used to be somebody, now I'm just a coin collector. Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
To be on the safe side. Maybe when a person purchases a key date PCGS coin, they should immediately send it to PCGS for a reconsideration. That way, if the coin or holder is not genuine, you can get a refund in a timely manner, from whomever sold it to you. Instead of finding out years later you got stuck with a coin or holder that is not genuine.
My 1916-D Merc, originally in an ANA holder, and my raw 1909 S VDB, were submitted by me to PCGS. So, I feel safe that my coins and holders are indeed genuine. Just a thought.
There was a very expensive 1796 either Large or Half Cent that was a forgery which was slabbed a number of years ago. Even the best make mistakes sometimes.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
@1630Boston said:
It's funny that the cert # is still valid on the web site
If the slab was indeed counterfeit, then those are almost always made using legit cert numbers that match whatever is in the counterfeit holder. Even if the tag is genuine, if it's not sent back to PCGS, the number stays in the database.
Like these!
"I Prefer Dangerous Freedom Over Peaceful Slavery"
Thomas Jefferson!
@cameonut2011 said:
On an interesting note, it is ironic that PCGS calls an altered coin counterfeit. It slabs Cart’s work. Added dates would seem to be in the same vein as added mint mark. Fictitious dates change nothing unless we give the Chinese a free pass on some of their most “creative” works.
That is a very good point. An altered coin is not a counterfeit coin.
@cameonut2011 are you referring to D. Carr? Apples and oranges. He's creating "coins" with dates and mintmarks that don't exist. They're fantasy pieces. Calling them altered or counterfeit is semantics. But making a coin from one real date and mintmark to another, while technically "altering," is also making a non-genuine version of the latter-dated/MM'd piece. A coin being represented as a 1916-D which is either not a D or not 1916 is not a genuine 1916-D. And among real 1916-Ds, the coin is certainly a counterfeit. What a can of worms PCGS would be opening if they began to grade all the key coins as just damaged as long as the host coin prior to alteration was a genuine example.
I think they are referring to the tag returned with coin from PCGS shown on page 1. It says counterfeit added mntmark.
@cameonut2011 said:
On an interesting note, it is ironic that PCGS calls an altered coin counterfeit. It slabs Cart’s work. Added dates would seem to be in the same vein as added mint mark. Fictitious dates change nothing unless we give the Chinese a free pass on some of their most “creative” works.
That is a very good point. An altered coin is not a counterfeit coin.
@cameonut2011 are you referring to D. Carr? Apples and oranges. He's creating "coins" with dates and mintmarks that don't exist. They're fantasy pieces. Calling them altered or counterfeit is semantics. But making a coin from one real date and mintmark to another, while technically "altering," is also making a non-genuine version of the latter-dated/MM'd piece. A coin being represented as a 1916-D which is either not a D or not 1916 is not a genuine 1916-D. And among real 1916-Ds, the coin is certainly a counterfeit. What a can of worms PCGS would be opening if they began to grade all the key coins as just damaged as long as the host coin prior to alteration was a genuine example.
I think they are referring to the tag returned with coin from PCGS shown on page 1. It says counterfeit added mntmark.
That’s in line with what I said. I don’t read that as “this host coin is a counterfeit” AND “a mint mark was added” but rather “this is a ‘counterfeit 1916-D dime’ because the mint mark was added”
@cameonut2011 said:
On an interesting note, it is ironic that PCGS calls an altered coin counterfeit. It slabs Cart’s work. Added dates would seem to be in the same vein as added mint mark. Fictitious dates change nothing unless we give the Chinese a free pass on some of their most “creative” works.
That is a very good point. An altered coin is not a counterfeit coin.
@cameonut2011 are you referring to D. Carr? Apples and oranges. He's creating "coins" with dates and mintmarks that don't exist. They're fantasy pieces. Calling them altered or counterfeit is semantics. But making a coin from one real date and mintmark to another, while technically "altering," is also making a non-genuine version of the latter-dated/MM'd piece. A coin being represented as a 1916-D which is either not a D or not 1916 is not a genuine 1916-D. And among real 1916-Ds, the coin is certainly a counterfeit. What a can of worms PCGS would be opening if they began to grade all the key coins as just damaged as long as the host coin prior to alteration was a genuine example.
What about the 1964-D Peace issues? Pieces may or may not exist. The Langboard double eagles were all supposedly melted too. Then there is his 2009 silver Eagle. Hmm…
That’s not what the case law says. Date alterations or other minor alterations are not sufficient to deprive a coin of counterfeit, replica, or imitation numismatic item status. In any event there are numerous threads on that topic, and the purpose of my post was not to debate the legal or numismatic status of Carr’s work. *** I am merely stating that alteration of an original numismatic item apparently wasn’t enough for PCGS to stop from slabbing other altered coins, and it is odd to single these out from others. *** Maybe we should start calling these “fantasy mint marks.” The D is obviously fake. No one would be fooled. 😉
We agree that this Dime should never have been slabbed. Neither should other altered coins.
Interesting where this discussion has gone, but I have always wondered about Carr pieces and what they should be called relative to counterfeit.
In my article just published in EAC's April Penny-Wise I discuss my "counterfeit" 1796 large cent struck over an 1843 petite head large cent, which by the way is also certified as genuine.
Since it represents a true known variety but is struck over a known genuine example is it NOT counterfeit?
@1630Boston said:
It's funny that the cert # is still valid on the web site
If the slab was indeed counterfeit, then those are almost always made using legit cert numbers that match whatever is in the counterfeit holder. Even if the tag is genuine, if it's not sent back to PCGS, the number stays in the database.
Comments
If the slab was indeed counterfeit, then those are almost always made using legit cert numbers that match whatever is in the counterfeit holder. Even if the tag is genuine, if it's not sent back to PCGS, the number stays in the database.
@cameonut2011 are you referring to D. Carr? Apples and oranges. He's creating "coins" with dates and mintmarks that don't exist. They're fantasy pieces. Calling them altered or counterfeit is semantics. But making a coin from one real date and mintmark to another, while technically "altering," is also making a non-genuine version of the latter-dated/MM'd piece. A coin being represented as a 1916-D which is either not a D or not 1916 is not a genuine 1916-D. And among real 1916-Ds, the coin is certainly a counterfeit. What a can of worms PCGS would be opening if they began to grade all the key coins as just damaged as long as the host coin prior to alteration was a genuine example.
Mine was two mint marks. C's..... Not something that I even dreamed of....gluing to C's to the back. I've had altered coins in the past but this went right by me...fortunately not by PCGS. Acetone may have discovered the ruse.
bob
Here’s my latest thoughts.
The slab insert is genuine, taken from a authentic 1916 D, G 06 slab. The authentic insert was placed in a counterfeit slab along with an “added mint mark” altered 1916 Dime. So if a buyer simply did a Cert. Verification, it would come up as a genuine coin. The scary part is that you now have to be wary of any higher value coin in a slab. Which begs the question, how many counterfeits are out there?
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
He has created some with dates/mintmarks that have existed and can't be proved to no longer exist.
To be on the safe side. Maybe when a person purchases a key date PCGS coin, they should immediately send it to PCGS for a reconsideration. That way, if the coin or holder is not genuine, you can get a refund in a timely manner, from whomever sold it to you. Instead of finding out years later you got stuck with a coin or holder that is not genuine.
My 1916-D Merc, originally in an ANA holder, and my raw 1909 S VDB, were submitted by me to PCGS. So, I feel safe that my coins and holders are indeed genuine. Just a thought.
There was a very expensive 1796 either Large or Half Cent that was a forgery which was slabbed a number of years ago. Even the best make mistakes sometimes.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
Like these!
"I Prefer Dangerous Freedom Over Peaceful Slavery"
Thomas Jefferson!
Is there any physical evidence that the slab is counterfeit?
First time heard of that kind of turnaround. Ouch.
I think they are referring to the tag returned with coin from PCGS shown on page 1. It says counterfeit added mntmark.
That’s in line with what I said. I don’t read that as “this host coin is a counterfeit” AND “a mint mark was added” but rather “this is a ‘counterfeit 1916-D dime’ because the mint mark was added”
Interesting where this discussion has gone, but I have always wondered about Carr pieces and what they should be called relative to counterfeit.
In my article just published in EAC's April Penny-Wise I discuss my "counterfeit" 1796 large cent struck over an 1843 petite head large cent, which by the way is also certified as genuine.
Since it represents a true known variety but is struck over a known genuine example is it NOT counterfeit?
Those inserts are easy to ID as fake.