Red Flags are Flying, Alarm Bells are Ringing- OFFICIALLY ALTERED 1938 PR67CAM PCGS Nickel
FlyingAl
Posts: 2,858 ✭✭✭✭✭
I'll start off with the harder to see example, and then I'll progress to an easier one after a few hints are given. Note: both coins (when the second is shown) are in straight graded PCGS CAM holders.
I contacted the auctioneer of one of these coins a while ago when the coin was up for auction, warning them. They said they would let the auction end and then look into concerns, but it seems they simply progressed to a BIN. I'm not sure if PCGS is aware of the coin.
If you already know the answer from a different post of mine, try and hold off for a bit until others can get a chance to answer.
Note: this post will be my opinion based on my experience in this era of proofs. What is there will be hard to see until it is pointed out. That's why the TPGS got fooled. I could be wrong about these coins, but I think the facts I will provide when we are done will speak for themselves.
The harder coin:
Young Numismatist, Coin Photographer.
Comments
@FlyingAl I’m flying blind here so I’ll watch and learn.
Are those brush lines in the frost on Monticello? Painted on frost?
Just WAG - there seems to be a lot of lines (possibly die polish?), especially noticeable on the reverse.
But then as @DNADave noted, the 'cam effect' seems to have been created somehow, but in a different manner than the 'lines' in the fields. Looking forward to learning more
Successful BST Transactions: erwindoc, VTchaser, moursund, robkool, RelicKING, Herb_T, Meltdown
I am with @DNADave
Was the first thing I noticed
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
Painted on frost using matt acrylic varnish? I'm just guessing. Something also seems to going on in the fields.
I’ll already ready for the answer lol
So impatient!
+1 for @DNADave
Young Numismatist
To me, based on the OP, there is some trickery going on here that is more than painting on a cam appearance - wouldn't the TPGS pick up on that? I think there was some distraction at play to take the focus away from what was really going on - again just a WAG...
Successful BST Transactions: erwindoc, VTchaser, moursund, robkool, RelicKING, Herb_T, Meltdown
At first I thought those were die polish lines, but they're not uniform on Monticello... more like brush lines as @DNADave said...
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.
cleaned
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
Do I detect pvc, cam looks fake.
Warning. Warning Will Robinson.
I've seen this before especially on cu/ ni coins.
I believe the surfaces are simply hazed. Indeed, the reverse haze is caused by a smeared fingerprint.
I believe the coin will clean up just fine but is not at all cameo. It could be lightly hairlined, too.
In for the results. I’m intrigued.
Why step over the dollar to get to the cent? Because it's a 55DDO.
Looks like fake cameo applied.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
Aside from the issue at hand the coin seems to be the re-engraved obverse variety, maybe FS-403.
This is the same coin listed in CoinFacts at PR68, next.
I forgot to mention - Great detective work I never would have seen it unless you inadvertently asked me to look
So you’re looking for one of these I take it?
As I as well
So some type of clear coating was applied?
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
Painted frosting... and not a very good job of it.
I agree with the point about Monticello being 'brushed' or something.... seems quite obvious. If there is more, I have missed it.... Cheers, RickO
It would be fun to see if it could get a CAC sticker.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
So many of you got it right I think it’s pointless to carry on! I didn't expect you guys to get it so fast!
Yes, the frost was applied with a brush. You can notice these lines on the reverse on the left side of Monticello. This was a common alteration technique used in the 90s-2000s that fooled the TPGS quite frequently. This is actually pretty well done IMO, as there is very little frost fade into the fields that doesn't look like toning. A hazy look is common for these proofs. This is the only certified PCGS CAM 1938 nickel, so that brings current pops down to 2 at NGC. One NGC CAM looks to be as labeled, unaltered. The other has very weak frost. Th obverses of these coins is the FS-402, same as the OP coin.
Here’s the other more obvious coin and slab shots of this one:
The OP coin is currently for sale at over $8k. That’s a roughly $8k premium for the three letters that say CAM on the slab and an altered coin.
Young Numismatist, Coin Photographer.
You did see the match right?
The four spots on his eyelid and the slanted dent above his eyebrow it is the same coin.
I suggest getting back in touch with the auctioneer and seeing what, if anything, they have to say about addressing your (apparently well founded) concerns.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
This issue will be solved at the TPG level not the ebay or auctioneer/seller level.
TPGs need to sniff these out, and/or buy them back.
They are not the same coin. Although they are from the same die pair, they look completely different. The coin in the OP is graded in a PCGS cameo slab, which means it is the only one out there. No one in their right mind would crack that coin out.
Feel free to circle the areas you were talking about if you still have questions.
Young Numismatist, Coin Photographer.
I'd be careful second-guessing the graders and the TPG companies. They have a lot of credibility riding on each coin they certify. As others said a solution is a guarantee/warranty submission to have them take another look.
I had a better date $20 Lib certified by PCGS I posted on here. Two trips to our sponsor based on JA's concerns which were totally valid, the first time for putty/AT, the second for what he saw as tooling, very slight. PCGS did not flag it though grudgingly admitted the issue with documentation. The coin was cracked out and sent to NGC and they did not see the "tooling" as enough to warrant a details grade.
@FlyingAl This was done to many Morgan dollars and Franklin halves back in the day. I made a thread about it months ago to see if anybody knew if it was still be practiced. There are probably aa few unsuspecting collectors out there with coins that were altered by adding fake cameo contrast. It fooled the TPG's many times.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
Oh! I see now, the same die pair would explain why there are similarities.
If the buyer of such a coin is unaware of a possible alteration, the “solution” of a guarantee/warranty submission isn’t of any value.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@logger7
Here’s what I wrote to the auction company - it is a much more in depth response and details many reasons I believe these coins are altered.
“You may or may not know, but the 1936-42 proofs series was a heavy target for cameo faking when the grading services started grading these coins as cameo. A coin doctor would apply some sort of colored texture to the coin with a brush, and it would appear to be cameo to even the best when viewed. PCGS and NGC were fooled more than once before the mistake was caught. I believe the services tried their best to recall all of those coins and guarantee them, but they must have invariably missed some. I strongly believe that this is one such coin. Here is my reasoning:
As I was looking at this coin I knew it was one of three cameos, so I wanted to try and die match it - that is, to find other coins struck by the die that maybe aren't cameo, but much more attractive than your average coin. I continued to try to do this even after I had identified it as an altered coin. I concluded that there are no other coins struck by this obverse (FS-403 obverse) and a reverse of this quality. I also found that no 1938 proof nickel shows a reverse approaching the contrast shown on the reverse of the coin we are discussing, even the NGC cameo coins. This is something that I have never encountered - that is, I have always been able to die match a coin from this era (including matching contrast). I did, however, confirm that this obverse and reverse were indeed paired, so the coin is genuine, but the reverse never showed any sort of contrast approaching cameo (it was brilliant even though the obverse was cameo).
The second reason is the brush-like texture to the left side of Monticello. I have never seen a proof from this era with this kind of texture or markings, and there is no reason for how it could be created at the mint. This texture would be highly indicative of the alteration process I described above, and since there was no process that could have ever made that appearance during the minting process, it must have been done outside the mint. The overall texture of the frost is also quite unlike anything I have ever seen, as the frost is rarely this smooth. I will attach a picture of my 1938 nickel so you can compare the frost texture.
The last point is that this coin has spots of brilliance in strange areas. It appears that those brilliant spots appear where the brush of the alterer missed the area because they were hard to reach. I also compared these areas to coins from the same die pair, and noticed immediately that the brilliant areas did not match up. The areas that were brilliant on the 1938 PR67CAM coin were frosted on a coin with less contrast. This only makes sense if you consider the possibility of an alteration.
Based on the above, I have concluded that the coin has been altered and I wanted to bring it to your attention. I highly doubt that anyone would catch this unless they knew the series very well, so I ask that you would at least send it to PCGS to have them confirm the status of the coin, perhaps bringing up a few of the points I mentioned. This is a particularly rare coin in CAM, so I'd hate to see someone get fooled.”
My 1938:
Young Numismatist, Coin Photographer.
If the coin turns out to be doctored, who will lose the most money? Will the grading service be on the hook for 100%?
I am not seeing the warranty payouts any more on the statistics page: https://www.pcgs.com/statistics
Remember that die polish is almost always going to be on the fields. On the die, they’re the highest point and generally flat, so running a rag over them will easily hairline them. To get die polish lines on the devices would require a rag to be pushed into the die. Perhaps you’d be able to make some lines on a flat design, like the relatively smooth, large portrait of Franklin on the half, but with the varying depths of the Monticello design, I can’t imagine noticeable due polish lines could be imparted.
Apparently this nickel has been known about since 2005. Why is it still in a slab?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/359203/proof-jeff-gang-1938-pr67-cam
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
Great question. I think I'll email PCGS with the coin details.
Edit: @PCGS_Moderator @HeatherBoyd
Young Numismatist, Coin Photographer.
Update:
I noticed that the auction house has a NuTilt feature on this coin. All I can say is that the frost looks completely "off." It's splotchy and missing in areas you would't expect, and just looks wrong.
The coin can be viewed in that format here:
https://www.davidlawrence.com/tiltview.html?cert_id=40047031&referrer_id=dl
I was trying to avoid outing the auction house publicly, but since a quick google search would bring it up I don't see a need. It would be an annoying extra step for forum members to go through. If anyone has any issues with this, I will edit this post accordingly.
Young Numismatist, Coin Photographer.
I am not convinced your 'theory' is correct. Do you have or have you read Cameo and Brilliant Proof Coinage of the 1950 to 1970 Era by Rick Jerry Tomaska? He goes into great detail of proof coin production describing how during the gap from 1942 and 1950 experience was lost and volume drastically increased. He says proof dies were regularly repolished. The first step involved wire brushing the recessed areas with diamond dust before repolishing and buffing the dies. This causes the lines you say are paint brushes. Isn't possible they did this from 1936 through 1942?
The following link is to cert verification page of a 1951 proof nickel page with similar lines.
https://pcgs.com/cert/43044302
a couple paragraphs from Tomaska's book
I have read the book. While the 1950-70s era is similar to the 36-42 era, this is not one of the similarities. In 1936-42, the mint had no intention of ever producing proofs with frost. They simply didn't care and the information we have from the mint in this era backs that up. The simple fact that cameo proofs from 1936-42 are quite literally exponentially rarer than those from 1950 onwards also says volumes.
However, this changes in 1950. The mint decides to start attempting to produce cameo coins and adds the steps of a longer acid dip to the dies, wire brushing them upon repolish, and in general begins producing more cameo coins. They succeeded in beginning to more consistently achieve the cameo look.
In addition, it still doesn't explain why coins from the same die pair with less frost (later in the die life) have frost in the areas this coin has brilliance. It should be the other way around, unless this coin was altered. The coin earlier in the die life should always have more frost than one later in the die life, and that frost will appear in the exact same areas of the die until it is worn away.
Secondly, this brushing process doesn't create brilliance, it creates frost. Here's a wire brushed coin, note the frost created by the lines on the devices, and it looks nothing like the 1938 above. The lines are extremely thin, so look closely. Hope this helps
.
Young Numismatist, Coin Photographer.
so you are saying the 1951 nickel I posted is the same paintbrush effect? I imagine coin in hand could easily determine if lines are die polish lines with raised surface. Most faked cameo effects I have seen have turned color after a few years, but I imagine something could be stable against the coins.
I’m saying the 1938 in the OP isn’t the same as the 1951s posted. In addition, in the video of the coin the lines do not appear raised.
Young Numismatist, Coin Photographer.
How do you explain the horizontal lines above the steps that are not on the pillars but are seen behind them?
link to NuTilt->https://davidlawrence.com/tiltview.html?cert_id=40047031&referrer_id=dl
Die polish, they appear on multiple 1938 nickels. See examples here:
And here:
https://coins.ha.com/itm/jefferson-nickels/nickels/1938-5c-pr66-ngc-ngc-census-537-246-pcgs-population-1000-306-cdn-110-whsle-bid-for-ngc-pcgs-pr66-mintage-19-36/a/132236-21202.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515#
And here:
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/471547/1938-Jefferson-Nickel-NGC-Proof-66-CAC
Notice how the areas of brilliance on the OP coin don't match up. None of those coins show a brush like area on the reverse that would be needed for your theory of the lines brush like brilliant lines being on the die. In addition, the brilliant area on the OP coin along Jefferson's jawline is frosted in the second Trueview, even though it is a later die state. This should be the opposite if the OP coin was genuine.
I wonder if perhaps you're confused about what lines are being talked about here. The lines of brilliance circled here are what this thread references:
If you're not confused about that, I would ask how this coin was produced at the mint, by the same dies as the one above, and yet has brilliance in areas that one has frost even though it's a later die state. I believe there is one logical conclusion - the coin must have been altered some way at some time after it left the mint. There's almost overwhelming evidence to support this.
Young Numismatist, Coin Photographer.
The frost comes from the first few strikes on new dies and after reworking / polishing dies. That coin was one of the first after repolishing. You admit that the horizontal lines behind the pillars are 'die polish'. Can you explain how they are deep in the recesses of the devices and not being on the field? The last full coin you show has plenty of horizontal lines you call die polish. That could very well be the same reverse die as the coin you do not like, but after a few strikes. Brilliance is black, frost is white. I do not see the areas of brilliance you are referring to in those pictures and have circled. The fields are not polished and buffed very well suggesting to me job may not be finished yet.
I understand you said they never reworked dies on 36-42 proof coins, but they also never struck gold planchets in indianhead cent or buffalo nickel line .... and yet they exist.
They had more than 1 set of dies, and every day could be a different combination so referring to the obverse die is not pertinent to your red circled area on the reverse.
Differences in photography techniques and lighting can change how much frost is seen.
What do you see suggesting the coin you do not like is a later die state?
I think you're very lost. Let me see if I can clear it up.
The coin I "don't like" is the 67CAM OP coin. If we assume it's genuine for a second (I don't think it is), it is the earliest known strike. No coins before it are known.
When repolished, dies ONLY LOST frost, never gained it in 1936-42. That is a hard and strict fact. No way around it, no matter what happened in 1950-70. It takes brand new, unused and not repolished dies in 1936-42 to produce a cameo coin. They never regained frost upon repolish in 1936-42. Ever.
This coin here is a later die state of the exact same die pair as the 67CAM coin.
That means it's the same die pair, and for this coin, before a repolish. Wherever this coin has frost, the earlier die state coins struck before it MUST have frost. That's another fact. Remember, it's only possible for a die to lose frost after it starts striking coins in this era, it can never regain frost. Therefore, the frost on a later die state coin will always be able to me matched to a CAM coin with more frost. There should be no spots of brilliance on a CAM coin that aren't apparent on a later die state coin. In addition, there should be no spots fo frost on a later die state coin that aren't apparent on a CAM coin.
Let's take the CAM reverse and circle a spot of clear brilliance, which, as you stated, is black. This spot shows not a trace of frost.:
.
,
Therefore, if we take the above facts as true, which we have to, the later die state TrueViewed coin MUST have brilliance, and not a trace of frost in that area. Let's see:
Hang on a second! That area is frosted in the later die state coin! This cannot be possible, as dies cannot gain frost in this era. There are other areas where this is true, but this is the easiest to see. In addition, the difference in frost texture is readily apparent - they're not even similar up close! The second, non-CAM coin has the traditional acid created dimpled frost, while the 67CAM coin has a smooth, undimpled, unnatural frost not seen on any unaltered CAM coin of the era.
Therefore based on the facts, one of these two coins is altered. I choose to believe that the one with the incorrect color, frost texture, frost detail, frost placement, wrong overall look, and brush marks is the one that was altered. That coin is the one in the 67CAM holder.
I'm afraid I can't get any clearer. This is about as good as it gets when proving an alteration IMO. If you can come up with a viable explanation based on facts that proves the coin isn't altered, I will gladly remove the thread and apologize to everyone for wasting their time.
Young Numismatist, Coin Photographer.
Impressive. Full respect for your efforts.
x2. Thank you!