@SlickCoins said:
Yeah don't mention the mark in the leaf sprig that matches,,,,, esp don't mention the Master Engraver marks that match,,,I did add the reverse of my 1834 half dime LM3 to show another Master Engraver Mark that I bragged about.
Esp don't mention the anti counterfeit protection that matches.
If you're not seeing it,,, then you missed it.
Thanks all
Did you forget to take your meds today? And yesterday? And the day before? etc, etc, etc……..wow lol
I think the way you all treat someone just for asking questions or having their own opinions is a form of narcissism. JMO
Again nothing productive said
Thanks
OK, can you explain one simple question, how is it that it was struck in a collar, which is indisputable because of the sharp square edge and ejection marks on the edge, when the mint didn't use collars in 1793?
@SlickCoins said:
I think the way you all treat someone just for asking questions or having their own opinions is a form of narcissism. JMO
Again nothing productive said
Thanks
I think the issue is that you’re treating your own opinion as on the same level of people of this forum even though you seem to have no knowledge of coins at all and people on this forum have often spent decades looking at coins. Your opinion cares next to no weight, relatively.
Would you care to tell us what a “Master Engraver mark” is? If you get it right I’ll rethink my opinion on this coin.
I've followed this coin on three different forums. Truly some of todays most knowledgeable numismatists have weighed in on it, people who work for the top grading services, early copper experts, counterfeit detection experts as well as too many experienced collectors to count. Every single one of them has unequivocally stated that it is a fake, every one. The absolutely most promising answer was "It's a fake, but a pretty good one". Not a single, "It could be real". There really is no point in sending it to a third party grader because some of their representatives have already given their opinion. There is really nowhere else to go with this, no one believes it is genuine except you, and no one is going to be convinced. Time to let it go.
Sorry, gotta go on this one; the OP is beyond help and I wonder why the host here puts up with this level of babble nonsense. Really brings this forum down in my opinion...
@SlickCoins said:
For not having a coinage chamber they sure talk about it a bunch and have verified coins.
*First strike centered, second off center. Here, the newly struck com fell back only part way into the coming chamber at second impression, which may be rotated at any angle to the first. Sometimes it is not certain which impression came first: compare next two groups below. This and the three following types of double strikes have produced some of the rarest and most spectacular mint error coins in the Mint's history. Again, I have attempted completeness, but am under no illusion of having achieved it. (1794 variety 6, 1975 EAC: 555. 1800 variety 6, Bob Reynolds.
1810 variety 3, John S. Ashby collection. 1813 variety 2, "Dupont": 518a.)
Both strikings off center. Here the planchet was never fully inside the coining chamber, The second impression may be rotated at any angle to the first. (1795 variety 4b, 1975 EAC: 557. Variety 6, Jim Young Jr.
1797 variety 2b, Jack H. Robinson: 224, both strikes about equally off center, plainest at dentils. 1798 variety 32, ANS.*
Also
*Ejection: Single Planchet
Any failure of the feeding mechanism to eject the newly struck coin completely from the coining chamber will produce a mint error. Except for double profiles, these are major errors, some grotesque, all prized.*
Lol then or than
All great come backs,,, oh and ask me what are Master Engraver Marks.
Thanks all
@SlickCoins said:
I don't know sir, I'm only going off what I was told they was.
I described to the local coin shop I took it to what I was seeing & he said those are Master Engraver marks and they did that on recycled dies.
I'm honest
Well, if you’re only going by what you’re told and don’t really have an understanding of the terms you’re using, then why are you sticking so hard to those beliefs? The answer is that there is no such term as a “Master Engraver mark.”
Yeah cause instead of smart coin talk,,, we bash the OP for having questions & opinions.
Oh and if you disagree with the experts you are a troll.
Good stuff
Thanks all
PS I'd present everything in high detail,,,, mint rod impact lighting & Master Engraver marks along with my whole proof to business concept.
@SlickCoins said:
With Gregory G Brunk & the concept that he brought to the table great man,, the concept totally opens eyes,,, JMO and why not our coins.
So since I'm the inventor let's roll.
Master Engraver marks are not like the traditional punched/impacted,,, for these were master engravers thus they engraved,,, I've only seen the true Master Engraver marks prior to any mint mark.
Like examples of Master Engraver Marks are here in my thread,,, you are welcome 🤗😁
That doesn’t make any sense to anyone who understands how the die engraving process works. You’re just spitting out random words.
@SlickCoins said:
Hmmm refer to my PS on last message.
Oh I bet I could spit out a ton more in person.
Here's an example,,, Master Engraver marks are engraved on the die or hub that strikes the coin,,,, whereas mint marks are impacted/struck on the coin. Of course the new ones are machined on.
Therefore Master Engraver marks are on all coins struck from the dies and hubs and nobody was messing around with the coins themselves, whereas mint marks had a mint employee smacking the coin repeatedly sometimes correctly and other times they make mistakes,,,, or like some of my coins intentionally make their own specimen.
@SlickCoins said:
Hmmm refer to my PS on last message.
Oh I bet I could spit out a ton more in person.
Here's an example,,, Master Engraver marks are engraved on the die or hub that strikes the coin,,,, whereas mint marks are impacted/struck on the coin. Of course the new ones are machined on.
This is what I mean.
In that short couple of sentences you managed to get all of this wrong:
Mint marks were never struck on the coin, they’re struck on the dies. The US didn’t even use mint marks when the genuine version of this coin was made.
There is no such term as a “Master Engraver mark.” There isn’t even such a thing as a Master Engraver.
Hubs never strike coins. They weren’t even using hubs at this point either.
@SlickCoins said:
Actually Williams video proves it and so have I in this same thread and on the 1804's in William's post.
Hmmm maybe not in your books,,, here I found a book named Israel artists and Master engravers.
While doing research thinking our Master Engraver was from there.
Actually, no. The information I just told you is very well established. You’re still spouting randomness. This is why people are reacting negatively towards you.
@SlickCoins said:
No comment on the mark in the picture hoop?
Thanks
If you want a comment, the mark isn’t the same shape or in the exact same place, but regardless it should be obvious that it’s from a completely different set of dies than the genuine examples. Compare the hole in top of the 9 to the other examples. Look at the width of the leaves and stems. Since (again) there were no hubs used to make these, and all dies were individually made, if they dod have the exact same die gouge then they would have to be from the exact same dies, so all the lettering and devices would need to match up exactly, which they clearly don’t. So the presence of that raised bulge there means nothing except that it’s counterfeit.
There are much much better fakes out there than this piece. There are even fakes that do precisely replicate genuine coins down to the minute details like die gouges because they are made using dies that are produced from a mold on a genuine coin. This is very far from that, it looks like it was hand-made in someone’s basement. It’s laughably bad. This will be my final comment here.
@SlickCoins said:
For not having a coinage chamber they sure talk about it a bunch and have verified coins.
*First strike centered, second off center. Here, the newly struck com fell back only part way into the coming chamber at second impression, which may be rotated at any angle to the first. Sometimes it is not certain which impression came first: compare next two groups below. This and the three following types of double strikes have produced some of the rarest and most spectacular mint error coins in the Mint's history. Again, I have attempted completeness, but am under no illusion of having achieved it. (1794 variety 6, 1975 EAC: 555. 1800 variety 6, Bob Reynolds.
1810 variety 3, John S. Ashby collection. 1813 variety 2, "Dupont": 518a.)
Both strikings off center. Here the planchet was never fully inside the coining chamber, The second impression may be rotated at any angle to the first. (1795 variety 4b, 1975 EAC: 557. Variety 6, Jim Young Jr.
1797 variety 2b, Jack H. Robinson: 224, both strikes about equally off center, plainest at dentils. 1798 variety 32, ANS.*
Also
*Ejection: Single Planchet
Any failure of the feeding mechanism to eject the newly struck coin completely from the coining chamber will produce a mint error. Except for double profiles, these are major errors, some grotesque, all prized.*
Lol then or than
All great come backs,,, oh and ask me what are Master Engraver Marks.
Thanks all
Certainly there was a coining chamber in 1793, the coining chamber is nothing more than the area of the coining press where the coin is struck. A collar however is the third die, there is an obverse die, a reverse die and the collar or edge die. This "coin" was struck with a collar. Collars were not in use at the US mint in 1793. I would have to look it up to be sure of the date, but I believe it was around 1831 before collars were used.
At this point, why is anyone wasting their time, trying to reason with or educate the OP?
It’s been clear for quite some time that he’s seeking attention, not information. Please don’t respond to him. Your time is far more valuable that that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
There's an old beat up RV that I see around now and then, the whole thing is covered in a smallish rambling text. Theories about this and that.
The windows are all covered in tin foil.
I wonder if this could be the headquarter/laboratory of our esteemed cent expert?
Next time it rolls through, I'll look and see if any of the writings refer to the nefarious Master Engraver 🤔
@MFeld said:
At this point, why is anyone wasting their time, trying to reason with or educate the OP?
It’s been clear for quite some time that he’s seeking attention, not information. Please don’t respond to him. Your time is far more valuable that that.
Exactly what I said about 30 posts ago. I also believe he’s a very lonely person too. Bad attention is sometimes better than no attention at all.
Comments
Did you forget to take your meds today? And yesterday? And the day before? etc, etc, etc……..wow lol
Take diggs at the coin,,, remember I'm a nobody,,, or talk smack about what you see.
I'm a nobody remember.
Thanks
What is your method to your madness? Trying to understand you, but you are making very little sense. What are you really trying to prove?
I don’t think you truly believe anything you’re saying. My diagnosis here is an extreme case of narcissism.
Again refer to the end
I think the way you all treat someone just for asking questions or having their own opinions is a form of narcissism. JMO
Again nothing productive said
Thanks
OK, can you explain one simple question, how is it that it was struck in a collar, which is indisputable because of the sharp square edge and ejection marks on the edge, when the mint didn't use collars in 1793?
I think the issue is that you’re treating your own opinion as on the same level of people of this forum even though you seem to have no knowledge of coins at all and people on this forum have often spent decades looking at coins. Your opinion cares next to no weight, relatively.
Would you care to tell us what a “Master Engraver mark” is? If you get it right I’ll rethink my opinion on this coin.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
@SlickCoins "it's only obvious I'm on a different level then you all."
Yes, it's a lot lower one than all of us.
Maybe you can start by looking up the difference between then & than.
Attention seeking. And so far it’s working.
I've followed this coin on three different forums. Truly some of todays most knowledgeable numismatists have weighed in on it, people who work for the top grading services, early copper experts, counterfeit detection experts as well as too many experienced collectors to count. Every single one of them has unequivocally stated that it is a fake, every one. The absolutely most promising answer was "It's a fake, but a pretty good one". Not a single, "It could be real". There really is no point in sending it to a third party grader because some of their representatives have already given their opinion. There is really nowhere else to go with this, no one believes it is genuine except you, and no one is going to be convinced. Time to let it go.
IGNORANCE IS BLISS.
He sounds like one happy camper...
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
{DOYR} do your own research
Video game control broken? Is this the fallback entertainment?
Sorry, gotta go on this one; the OP is beyond help and I wonder why the host here puts up with this level of babble nonsense. Really brings this forum down in my opinion...
Off to Coin Talk!
PS,,, you all know I'm pulling the Breen info right off PCGS yes?
Wait let me guess,,, you all are gonna say you have a bunch of salt on your website?
Ok… what’s a Master Engraver mark?
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Well, if you’re only going by what you’re told and don’t really have an understanding of the terms you’re using, then why are you sticking so hard to those beliefs? The answer is that there is no such term as a “Master Engraver mark.”
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
@SlickCoins was nominated for and won the prestigious “Official Troll” award over at NGC.
I would also like to nominate him for the same reward over here. I find it well deserved.
Coin Photographer.
Yeah cause instead of smart coin talk,,, we bash the OP for having questions & opinions.
Oh and if you disagree with the experts you are a troll.
Good stuff
Thanks all
PS I'd present everything in high detail,,,, mint rod impact lighting & Master Engraver marks along with my whole proof to business concept.
That doesn’t make any sense to anyone who understands how the die engraving process works. You’re just spitting out random words.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Lol more quotes from the experts
I’m sure you could, but they still wouldn’t mean anything.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
This is what I mean.
Therefore Master Engraver marks are on all coins struck from the dies and hubs and nobody was messing around with the coins themselves, whereas mint marks had a mint employee smacking the coin repeatedly sometimes correctly and other times they make mistakes,,,, or like some of my coins intentionally make their own specimen.
In that short couple of sentences you managed to get all of this wrong:
Mint marks were never struck on the coin, they’re struck on the dies. The US didn’t even use mint marks when the genuine version of this coin was made.
There is no such term as a “Master Engraver mark.” There isn’t even such a thing as a Master Engraver.
Hubs never strike coins. They weren’t even using hubs at this point either.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
See quote
Actually, no. The information I just told you is very well established. You’re still spouting randomness. This is why people are reacting negatively towards you.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Check page 1, he got the troll award here also.
Anyways
Use the flag button and report him to admin. No sense in continuing to feed the troll.
Hopefully, he'll either get the message or won't be an annoyance anymore.
No comment on the mark in the picture hoop?
Thanks
If you want a comment, the mark isn’t the same shape or in the exact same place, but regardless it should be obvious that it’s from a completely different set of dies than the genuine examples. Compare the hole in top of the 9 to the other examples. Look at the width of the leaves and stems. Since (again) there were no hubs used to make these, and all dies were individually made, if they dod have the exact same die gouge then they would have to be from the exact same dies, so all the lettering and devices would need to match up exactly, which they clearly don’t. So the presence of that raised bulge there means nothing except that it’s counterfeit.
There are much much better fakes out there than this piece. There are even fakes that do precisely replicate genuine coins down to the minute details like die gouges because they are made using dies that are produced from a mold on a genuine coin. This is very far from that, it looks like it was hand-made in someone’s basement. It’s laughably bad. This will be my final comment here.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Certainly there was a coining chamber in 1793, the coining chamber is nothing more than the area of the coining press where the coin is struck. A collar however is the third die, there is an obverse die, a reverse die and the collar or edge die. This "coin" was struck with a collar. Collars were not in use at the US mint in 1793. I would have to look it up to be sure of the date, but I believe it was around 1831 before collars were used.
*
Thank you, Heavenly Father, for first loving us.
At this point, why is anyone wasting their time, trying to reason with or educate the OP?
It’s been clear for quite some time that he’s seeking attention, not information. Please don’t respond to him. Your time is far more valuable that that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
There's an old beat up RV that I see around now and then, the whole thing is covered in a smallish rambling text. Theories about this and that.
The windows are all covered in tin foil.
I wonder if this could be the headquarter/laboratory of our esteemed cent expert?
Next time it rolls through, I'll look and see if any of the writings refer to the nefarious Master Engraver 🤔
Exactly what I said about 30 posts ago. I also believe he’s a very lonely person too. Bad attention is sometimes better than no attention at all.
“A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.”
Joshua (WOPR), Wargames
US and British coin collector, and creator of The Ultimate Chuck E. Cheese's and Showbiz Pizza Place Token & Ticket Guide