Counterfeit: Inherited 1914-D Lincoln Cent

PipestonePete

Back in January I posted pics of a couple of Lincoln Cents that a friend of mine had inherited. I submitted the coins to PCGS and they determined that the 1914-D is counterfeit. It had received some positive comments when it was posted on the forum. I was somewhat surprised with the determination as the coin appears to show signs of verdigris on the obverse and reverse surfaces.

Manifest_Destiny

That one would have fooled me.

Jimnight

Excellent thread.

Connecticoin

Looks real from the pic - did they determine it was an added D? If so, that one is damn good!

VanHalen

Is it just the image or does "E PLURIBUS UNUM" look too large?

Meltdown

Frustrating... I don't think they offer any reasoning either. It sure looks good when you blow up the photos.

fastfreddie

Try ATS and see what they say.

mr1931S

The 'D' is too low and tilts up. The 'D' on 1914-D Lincoln cent is always seen level or tilting down slightly.

lilolme

Here is the information from the pcgs book. I didn't spend the time to look any closer but might be for others.

yosclimber

@mr1931S said:
The 'D' is too low and tilts up. The 'D' on 1914-D Lincoln cent is always seen level or tilting down slightly.

Here's the top photo from PCGS CoinFacts.
The D is also pretty low on this one.

As for "tilting up", the entire photo @PipestonePete posted is rotated to tilt up, so it would take some careful "straightening" to check that.


Here are "straightened" versions of the original photo.
I rotated the photo to make the bottom of LIBERTY level.

PerryHall

The inside of the D mintmark should be triangular in shape. I'm not sure if this is an added mintmark or a struck counterfeit using false dies.

Insider3

This example is in my opinion one of the best. I still consider it to be very deceptive I have not seen one of these for decades and have an example in my teaching collection. As I remember, they hit the market sometime during 1978 to 1983.

MFeld

@PipestonePete said:
Back in January I posted pics of a couple of Lincoln Cents that a friend of mine had inherited. I submitted the coins to PCGS and they determined that the 1914-D is counterfeit. It had received some positive comments when it was posted on the forum. I was somewhat surprised with the determination as the coin appears to show signs of verdigris on the obverse and reverse surfaces.

Why would the presence of verdigris cause you to be surprised by a determination that the coin was counterfeit?

PipestonePete

@MFeld said:
Why would the presence of verdigris cause you to be surprised by a determination that the coin was counterfeit?

I assumed it takes a fair amount of time for verdigris to form hence I assumed this coin had to have some age to it. I guess I assumed incorrectly.

lkenefic

Maybe the counterfeiting was done some time ago allowing verdigris to form after improper storage... in any case, that one is very convincing!

MFeld

@PipestonePete said:

@MFeld said:
Why would the presence of verdigris cause you to be surprised by a determination that the coin was counterfeit?

I assumed it takes a fair amount of time for verdigris to form hence I assumed this coin had to have some age to it. I guess I assumed incorrectly.

I don’t know that you were wrong about that because I don’t know when the coin was produced.

conrad99

My sister inherited a spectacular sapphire ring from my grandmother. Can you guess where this is going?

Yep, she had it appraised and it turned out to be a fake. I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing that my grandparents never knew. Probably was replaced during a cleaning or resetting, or they may even have been 'taken' way back when my grandfather bought it for her. (Or maybe she inherited it? I dunno.)

Anyway this probably doesn't help much but we feel your pain.

Clackamas1

Would like to see Dan comment because that is a good fake.

PipestonePete

The 1909-S VDB I purchased 40+ years ago that was deemed non-genuine by ANACS in 1982..

291fifth

I seem to recall that high quality struck counterfeits of the 1914-D and 1909-S VDB date from the 1960s. The verdigris you observed could have had 60 years to form.

Greenstang

The 1909S is fairly easy to tell it is a counterfeit.
Look at the period after the D, it is in the wrong position,
it should closer to centre between the D and B

telephoto1

@PerryHall said:
The inside of the D mintmark should be triangular in shape. I'm not sure if this is an added mintmark or a struck counterfeit using false dies.

I agree with struck counterfeit. Nothing looks altered and the hair details and overall strike look off... a bit shallow.
Edit for typo and clarity

USMC_6115

I bought this one lots of years ago for a hole filler... hopefully it's real

burfle23

Interesting; this is the template I use to review these:

lkenefic

This should be something that AI could be applied to... superimposing image files and coming up with a percent likelihood.

Aotearoa

Coincidentally, this just popped up on our local version of eBay. The shape of the mint mark looks funky to me. What do you think? (I’m judging that this a valid thread extension. Apologies if you deem otherwise.)

burfle23

@PipestonePete can you take a higher resolution image of the "D" and area around it?

PipestonePete

@burfle23 said:
@PipestonePete can you take a higher resolution image of the "D" and area around it?

Smudge

@PipestonePete said:

@burfle23 said:
@PipestonePete can you take a higher resolution image of the "D" and area around it?

That 14D looks too good.

may

Cheekbone looks off to me. Surfaces too clean aswell.

burfle23

Thank you for the images.

The shape and position of the "D" look correct. Coin surfaces in the close-up image look off to me. Sounds odd, but looks "molded", not struck...

BuffaloIronTail

The inside of the "D" does not look angular.

In addition to the tilt, that may be the only way to prove it's counterfeit, as the coin itself looks exceptionally well made as a fake.

Pete

lilolme

Found some time late. Put a few comparisons together. This one looks fairly good. But the comparisons appear to show a few things. Here they are and you can decide. This is not my type of thing - not a counterfeit detective.

This is the true view coin I used. Hopefully I picked out the correct one (for positioning).

First is the date and mint mark. One without lines and then with lines. As yosclimber noted the two are not in the same alignment and that is shown with the two lines in the center. But should look at alignment of D with date numerals. This looks fairly good. Note there are differences in the photo shadows and similar that makes it more difficult. The outside of the D might be more rounded but I saw another 'good' one that also had that appearance (photo thing).
.

.

.
Here is the complete date comparison. The 4 looks off. Particularly the cross bar on the right side and the vertical on the top half as they appear to be thinner at the intersection.
As noted previously could be some softness or shallow strike in the 'head' details.
.


.
Then comparisons of the smaller letters. That is the 'In God We Trust' and 'Liberty'. The letters appear off on some. Particularly ones that curve and/or have an inner 'loop'. The O D R S B type of letters. Either kind of thin and/or the inner 'loop' appears off.
.

rec78

Very good thread! Have you weighed the coin? Is the weight within tolarence?

BustHalfBrian

I have a die-struck counterfeit 14-D much like this one. They are convincing at a glance, but usually upon closer inspection there some die markers or surface anomalies that indicate false dies. I'll see if I can find mine and post pics of it later.

BLUEJAYWAY

It looked too good.

dcarr

@Clackamas1 said:
Would like to see Dan comment because that is a good fake.

My first impression is that the devices are a little rounded over, and overall the coin looks too smooth and finely-granular.
The fine details in Lincoln's beard are also missing.

segoja

OP's coin looks off at first glance. Hair Details look weak and the whole coin just has an "off" feel to it. Its also very clean from a bagmark perspective, which is concerning.

renomedphys

Okay, in spite of all the details looking good to me, including the shape and location of the mintmark and just about all the other details, the only thing I can offer is that it just … doesn’t … look … real to me. If I had to guess, it’s a spark-erosion die strike. Very convincing and likely determined by other factors, such as rim or edge detail, or maybe a “gut call” was made by the authenticator. Do they do that?

BuffaloIronTail

@renomedphys said:
Okay, in spite of all the details looking good to me, including the shape and location of the mintmark and just about all the other details, the only thing I can offer is that it just … doesn’t … look … real to me. If I had to guess, it’s a spark-erosion die strike. Very convincing and likely determined by other factors, such as rim or edge detail, or maybe a “gut call” was made by the authenticator. Do they do that?

Whatever this coin is, and if it is counterfeit, I reiterate that it's a real good fake. Comments made before about the hair detail and the overall "look" ring true and it is a strange bird.

I still agree that it is not genuine.

Pete

DelawareDoons

Inside of MM isn't right. Relief feels a bit off too. Just not quite right. Otherwise pretty good, though.

sellitstore

Overall look is wrong for a 14D. Obverse too weak while reverse too sharp and too clean and smooth surfaces, soft look. Nope, doesn't look "right" compared to other 14Ds that I've observed.