Trade Dollars "authenticity unverifiable"

isamucoinandcurrency

I sent three Trade Dollars in for grading. All three were cleaned when I got them from a friend 20 years ago. Because of counterfeit Trade Dollars floating around I at least wanted to have them as "Genuine" cleaned. One came back "Genuine" cleaned and two came back "authenticty unverifiable". I am including photos. PCGS said the graders don't share notes about what they observe. Just wondering the difference between "authenticty unverifiable" and counterfeit.

vplite99

That is kind of scary. Maybe "Possibly excellent counterfeit"?

alefzero

@isamucoinandcurrency said:
@LanceNewmanOCC thank you for your comments. I am taking them to a friend that deals in precious metals to use his testing equipment. @alefzero the 1876 weighs 27.124 grams and the 1877 weighs 27.072 grams.

As expected. 420 grains is ~27.2 grams. This is consistent with variation and wear. Had it been out of range, they would have been returned as not authentic.

FlyingAl

What I’ve deduced it means from my time lurking here is that PCGS thinks they may be genuine but they aren’t positive, so they aren’t willing to put the guarantee behind it. Essentially, the coins are messed up enough in some way where you could in theory hide a counterfeit pretty well and PCGS won’t risk it.

kaz

I guess the graders saw some things they didn't like; perhaps the surfaces were altered to the point that they weren't comfortable. From the pcgs site, they will call a coin counterfeit as follows: Code 90 – Counterfeit
The coin is either a known counterfeit or exhibits characteristics of known counterfeits. This category includes otherwise genuine coins which have been altered to simulate rarities (re-engraved dates, added mintmarks, removed mintmarks, etc.).

MFeld

Following are my own suppositions. If a grading company labels a coin “counterfeit”, that should indicate extreme confidence that the coin isn’t genuine. If, on the other hand, a coin is labeled “authenticity unverifiable”, it should indicate that the grading company can’t reach a firm conclusion, one way or the other.

The images aren’t sharp, but from what I can see, the 1877-S looks as if it might have been subjected to more than just cleaning. The surfaces appear to have (possibly) been worked on. If so, that could account for the lack of a clear determination regarding authenticity. If the pictures were clearer, I might have similar thoughts about the 1876-S, as well.

PTVETTER

Should be 90% silver
Weight 27.22 grams
diameter 31.1 mm

jesbroken

I was told when I got my 86 buff, that it meant they were not willing to declare it genuine or counterfeit, thus UBN.
Sucks, but is what it is. They have the risk, not us, so I guess you cannot blame them. Plus if they could tell you, then they would probably be able to decide between the two.
Jim

lilolme

Not sure if this will help any but a little bigger.

.

.

.

isamucoinandcurrency

This the 1876 S closer up.

isamucoinandcurrency

I'll go with that

lilolme

From that photo the coin looks polished not just cleaned. They will authenticate polished coins but maybe they just were not comfortable with that one.

lilolme

and one more time.

.

MFeld

@isamucoinandcurrency said:
This the 1876 S closer up.

Those pictures are so different from the first ones that I don’t feel like I know what the coin looks like. But it does appear polished (as opposed to cleaned) in the new pictures.

Also, in writing “I'll go with that”, without quoting the post to which you were responding, it makes it difficult to know what you’re referring to.

isamucoinandcurrency

Excellent counterfeit. Anyway, the grandkids can play with them.

kaz

On the 76-s there appear to be some metal blobs in Liberty's "lap" that shouldn't be there.
There is a mushiness overall to the 77-s and Liberty's face profile is not flattering.

Rexford

It most likely means the surfaces of the coins are so destroyed that the coins can no longer be reliably authenticated. Judging by the photos this would appear to be the case.

ricko

The fields on the 77 definitely give me pause... From the pictures, I cannot determine if it is previous environmental damage or surface pitting from 'manufacturing process'. The 76 is polished beyond redemption.... Cheers, RickO

Glen2022

Does PCGS say why they can't determine if it is authentic?

MFeld

@Glen2022 said:
Does PCGS say why they can't determine if it is authentic?

That information isn't included, but a number of the replies here provide reasonable explanations.

isamucoinandcurrency

@ricko both coins have polished looking surfaces. The photos the look like sandpaper were my original photos that some on the forum enlarged. The other polished looking photos are a more accurate look. @Glen2022 I called PCGS after receiving them and I was told that the Graders do not keep or share notes. I fully understand that I am paying for an opinion, but it would be nice for educational purposes to know what they saw to come to their conclusion. Most objects don't do well under magnification, especially from an uploaded picture taken by a cell phone.

isamucoinandcurrency

sorry for the spelling errors

logger7

Whizzed, polished, smoothed, etc.. PCGS tends to be nicer about problem coins. Most of the time questionable authenticity coins are fakes.

slider23

The 1876 s has some strange lumps on the dress and polished. I agree with Rexford, "It most likely means the surfaces of the coins are so destroyed that the coins can no longer be reliably authenticated. Judging by the photos this would appear to be the case".

LanceNewmanOCC

@isamucoinandcurrency

do you know how to do a ring test? have access to a coin shop/show with an xrf? know a professional numismotographer?

despite the horrific polishing/plating, the coins look to have promise and i personally wouldn't write them off w/o having done some more leg work.

i wouldn't recommend submitting them again but there is a small chance if they had gone in for variety attribution, they could have came back genuine holdered. that process in much more in-depth and imo, has a higher likelyhood for a coin to receive genuine status that a general grading would not give.

the only somewhat useful comment i really have is after you started this thread, i did look at the images, as carefully as they would allow and with that much polishing?, one would expect to see metal displacement, it can be subtle sometimes but will usually manifest itself around some of the devices somewhere. i don't see that on either of those coins ironically. i won't speculate why someone would be so meticulous to do this when polishing as i'm sure there are some reasons but is something i thought worthy of mention.

alefzero

I have seen these more commonly with show submissions due to the short handling time, high volume to grade, and less available grading resources. The weight is probably just fine though.

isamucoinandcurrency

@LanceNewmanOCC thank you for your comments. I am taking them to a friend that deals in precious metals to use his testing equipment.

isamucoinandcurrency

@LanceNewmanOCC thank you for your comments. I am taking them to a friend that deals in precious metals to use his testing equipment. @alefzero the 1876 weighs 27.124 grams and the 1877 weighs 27.072 grams.

isamucoinandcurrency

@LanceNewmanOCC I had the coins checked by a friend who buys PM. One was 92% silver and the other was 95% silver. Smells like China to me.

LanceNewmanOCC

@isamucoinandcurrency said:
@LanceNewmanOCC I had the coins checked by a friend who buys PM. One was 92% silver and the other was 95% silver. Smells like China to me.

.
a good step in the right direction. at this point, you're not getting out of this w/o some legwork. did you guys happen to scan a morgan/peace or another trade $? kind of a litmus test for the scanner. also it isn't a terrible idea to scan an item a couple times in different places on the coin/item.

if you had the ability to get professional-level images, it would go MILES. imo, there is enough potential value there to figure this out.

isamucoinandcurrency

@LanceNewmanOCC Next time I can drive to San Antonio I will do some additional tests. I have several Trade Dollars and a butt load of Morgans to scan. As for the images, I have to figure out the correct lighting. I either get my own shadows over the images or have to place the coins at an angle that isn't flattering. I am going to try my wife's Canon Rebel next and see if it improves over the iPhone.

LanceNewmanOCC

@isamucoinandcurrency said:
@LanceNewmanOCC Next time I can drive to San Antonio I will do some additional tests. I have several Trade Dollars and a butt load of Morgans to scan. As for the images, I have to figure out the correct lighting. I either get my own shadows over the images or have to place the coins at an angle that isn't flattering. I am going to try my wife's Canon Rebel next and see if it improves over the iPhone.

sounds good. the iphone is more than sufficient. the images you uploaded in the middle of the thread are somewhat ok but you cropped them down so small, they are of almost no use. so if you have those originals (a few MB per image), upload them or just reshoot. best with 2 lights until you learn a bit more. you can look at the screen on the phone while you move lights/coin around to find a sweet spot.

ajaan

If I owned those coins, I would send them in to ANACS.