Is this the finest Mercury Dime ever seen?

Jeremy72

renomedphys

Might be the lighting or the photo angle but I’m going with counterfeit.

Jeremy72

Too good to be true?

jesbroken

Hair looks a little too perfect, but hope it's real, as I would think it is. Superb strike. Hair unbelieveable?
Jim

ndeagles

This looks fake, compare the hair to PR67
(36) and PR68 (42). The last picture is a pcgs 1919 MS67

Greenstang

It is a fine counterfeit. There are small details that say it isn’t genuine.
In the future, please shoot your photos head on. It distorts the features when shot on an angle.

Manifest_Destiny

Yes.

TomB

It's a mark-free modern counterfeit.

dcarr

Hard to tell, but I think it may be a very well-struck genuine coin that has been heavily "whizzed" (wire brushed in such a way that the hairlines and/or fake luster from that does not show at that lighting angle).

jmlanzaf

God, I hope not

MFeld

@ndeagles said:
This looks fake, compare the hair to PR67
(36) and PR68 (42). The last picture is a pcgs 1919 MS67

While I have serious doubts about the coin’s authenticity, I wouldn’t judge it, based on its details compared to those of Proofs. Many Proofs are missing details, due to over polished dies.

Walkerguy21D

Bummer, I was hoping for a fabulous backstory behind it……
On the bright side it’s not on the BST.

Martin

It’s just too bad in is not the Double Die

Martin

AUandAG

Left reverse star is missing details, next to One

I say no go.

bob

baseballjeff

Looks fake to me.

jesbroken

Does the OP own it? I will tell you why I think it to either be the first coin struck from a new set of dies with near perfect working pressures or we need to hire the fabricator. Look at the branch stems, I've looked at nearly 200 proofs and MS67 up on CoinFacts and elsewhere I could and not one had the features the OP's Merc offered on the branch stem or hair details.
Has to either be a counterfeit(by one of the best) or the most perfect Merc as the OP says. So either way, in my opinion, it is the best counterfeit struck or Mint Struck Mercury Dime.
Jim

dcarr

I still think it is just the right combination of extensive whizzing and/or wire brushing combined with optimal lighting.

crazyhounddog

No cigar. Looks very fake to me. The Chinese are getting better all the time.
Just say no.

jesbroken

@dcarr said:
I still think it is just the right combination of extensive whizzing and/or wire brushing combined with optimal lighting.

Boy, I hope you are right and it's not a counterfeit. We are in trouble beyond thought if it is.
Jim

rmpsrpms

I always thought that 1919 Lincoln Cent which was graded MS69RD or whatever was fake as well. Just too perfect to be true. Hmm, 1919.

MFeld

@rmpsrpms said:
I always thought that 1919 Lincoln Cent which was graded MS69RD or whatever was fake as well. Just too perfect to be true. Hmm, 1919.

Then you thought wrong about the 1919 cent. There isn’t anything the least bit questionable about it. And there’s nothing unusual about that date with respect to counterfeits.

Slade01

Perhaps it was the copper, but they made such great quality Lincolns in Philadelphia around that time compared to recent years.

robec

@rmpsrpms said:
I always thought that 1919 Lincoln Cent which was graded MS69RD or whatever was fake as well. Just too perfect to be true. Hmm, 1919.

From what I’ve read there were a few other coins in that roll that graded MS68.
From Mr. Blay

FlyingAl

@dcarr said:
I still think it is just the right combination of extensive whizzing and/or wire brushing combined with optimal lighting.

This is my thought as well.

airplanenut

@TomB said:
It's a mark-free modern counterfeit.

But is it the finest modern counterfeit Mercury Dime ever seen?

RobertScotLover

She looks like she has Jimmy Durante's nose, if this is genuine then I am a fake

Jeremy72

Sorry for not replying sooner, single dad of 3 pre teenage kids, wife died 2 years ago hopefully you can imagine not even enough time to scratch the ....:Let alone hang out all the time on dodg,y websites where middle aged men frequent 😅.

Yes, I bought the dime and the reason was because the seller also had this 1825 shilling, which I missed out on as was concentrating on the dime. Look at the details on the shilling and tell me we either have a master forger better than Leonardo de Vinci or they are impressive pieces. The 1825 on the obverse has scratches and that is why I concentrated on the dime.

As jesbroken has stated if the forgers have got to this level of sophistication I am NEVER BUYING COINS AGAIN...

Dime weighs 2.5 g silver content exact... The only thing that is different is it is slightly dark silver coloured rather than that cloudy whiter silver colour...

It will goto PCGS for their opinion...

Rexford

Genuine but dipped out at best and with photos taken in lighting that makes the devices pop. Certainly not the finest Merc ever.

Rexford

Odd responses in this thread.

CRHer700

I say fake on both. They just have way too much detail on the high points of the design.

jmlanzaf

@Rexford said:
Odd responses in this thread.

braddick

@Jeremy72 said:
Sorry for not replying sooner, single dad of 3 pre teenage kids, wife died 2 years ago hopefully you can imagine not even enough time to scratch the ....:Let alone hang out all the time on dodg,y websites where middle aged men frequent 😅.

Yes, I bought the dime and the reason was because the seller also had this 1825 shilling, which I missed out on as was concentrating on the dime. Look at the details on the shilling and tell me we either have a master forger better than Leonardo de Vinci or they are impressive pieces. The 1825 on the obverse has scratches and that is why I concentrated on the dime.
Dime weighs 2.5 g silver content exact... The only thing that is different is it is slightly dark silver coloured rather than that cloudy whiter silver colour...

It will goto PCGS for their opinion...

I look forward to a follow-up in a few weeks.
This thread reminds me of the well-struck Walker that was presented here a few months ago.

It'll be fun if this Mercury dime returns with a high grade.
It'll be educational if it doesn't.

Slade01

@Rexford said:
Odd responses in this thread.

Only in "this thread?"

rmpsrpms

@MFeld said:

@rmpsrpms said:
I always thought that 1919 Lincoln Cent which was graded MS69RD or whatever was fake as well. Just too perfect to be true. Hmm, 1919.

Then you thought wrong about the 1919 cent. There isn’t anything the least bit questionable about it. And there’s nothing unusual about that date with respect to counterfeits.

It has always looked a bit "off" to me, but I have never seen it in-hand. So indeed it is a bit questionable.

@robec said:

@rmpsrpms said:
I always thought that 1919 Lincoln Cent which was graded MS69RD or whatever was fake as well. Just too perfect to be true. Hmm, 1919.

From what I’ve read there were a few other coins in that roll that graded MS68.
From Mr. Blay

This makes me question it even more. Coins were not distributed in rolls in 1919. Sounds like the super-Cent probably came from a counterfeit roll of counterfeits. Even the best of us can be duped.

MFeld

@rmpsrpms said:

@MFeld said:

@rmpsrpms said:
I always thought that 1919 Lincoln Cent which was graded MS69RD or whatever was fake as well. Just too perfect to be true. Hmm, 1919.

Then you thought wrong about the 1919 cent. There isn’t anything the least bit questionable about it. And there’s nothing unusual about that date with respect to counterfeits.

It has always looked a bit "off" to me, but I have never seen it in-hand. So indeed it is a bit questionable.

@robec said:

@rmpsrpms said:
I always thought that 1919 Lincoln Cent which was graded MS69RD or whatever was fake as well. Just too perfect to be true. Hmm, 1919.

From what I’ve read there were a few other coins in that roll that graded MS68.
From Mr. Blay

This makes me question it even more. Coins were not distributed in rolls in 1919. Sounds like the super-Cent probably came from a counterfeit roll of counterfeits. Even the best of us can be duped.

I can’t tell whether you're trying to be funny, stir the pot or don’t understand that a large number of highly knowledgeable numismatists have seen the coin in hand and have no doubt regarding its authenticity. That includes the graders at PCGS. But maybe you (not even having seen the coin) are right and all of the experts who have seen it in hand are wrong.

rmpsrpms

@MFeld said:

@rmpsrpms said:

@MFeld said:

@rmpsrpms said:
I always thought that 1919 Lincoln Cent which was graded MS69RD or whatever was fake as well. Just too perfect to be true. Hmm, 1919.

Then you thought wrong about the 1919 cent. There isn’t anything the least bit questionable about it. And there’s nothing unusual about that date with respect to counterfeits.

It has always looked a bit "off" to me, but I have never seen it in-hand. So indeed it is a bit questionable.

@robec said:

@rmpsrpms said:
I always thought that 1919 Lincoln Cent which was graded MS69RD or whatever was fake as well. Just too perfect to be true. Hmm, 1919.

From what I’ve read there were a few other coins in that roll that graded MS68.
From Mr. Blay

This makes me question it even more. Coins were not distributed in rolls in 1919. Sounds like the super-Cent probably came from a counterfeit roll of counterfeits. Even the best of us can be duped.

I can’t tell whether you're trying to be funny, stir the pot or don’t understand that a large number of highly knowledgeable numismatists have seen the coin in hand and have no doubt regarding its authenticity. That includes the graders at PCGS. But maybe you (not even having seen the coin) are right and all of the experts who have seen it in hand are wrong.

I'm not trying to be funny at all. The coin is "off". It's too pristine, too well-struck, literally too perfect to be true. It's not the first time folks would be wrong about a coin, or a whole "roll" of coins as it seems.

Do you own it or have some stake/ conflict of interest in ensuring its provenance?

MFeld

@rmpsrpms said:

@MFeld said:

@rmpsrpms said:

@MFeld said:

@rmpsrpms said:
I always thought that 1919 Lincoln Cent which was graded MS69RD or whatever was fake as well. Just too perfect to be true. Hmm, 1919.

Then you thought wrong about the 1919 cent. There isn’t anything the least bit questionable about it. And there’s nothing unusual about that date with respect to counterfeits.

It has always looked a bit "off" to me, but I have never seen it in-hand. So indeed it is a bit questionable.

@robec said:

@rmpsrpms said:
I always thought that 1919 Lincoln Cent which was graded MS69RD or whatever was fake as well. Just too perfect to be true. Hmm, 1919.

From what I’ve read there were a few other coins in that roll that graded MS68.
From Mr. Blay

This makes me question it even more. Coins were not distributed in rolls in 1919. Sounds like the super-Cent probably came from a counterfeit roll of counterfeits. Even the best of us can be duped.

I can’t tell whether you're trying to be funny, stir the pot or don’t understand that a large number of highly knowledgeable numismatists have seen the coin in hand and have no doubt regarding its authenticity. That includes the graders at PCGS. But maybe you (not even having seen the coin) are right and all of the experts who have seen it in hand are wrong.

I'm not trying to be funny at all. The coin is "off". It's too pristine, too well-struck, literally too perfect to be true. It's not the first time folks would be wrong about a coin, or a whole "roll" of coins as it seems.

Do you own it or have some stake/ conflict of interest in ensuring its provenance?

No, I don’t own it or have any stake or conflict of interest. I’m just puzzled by your repeated questioning of it. But it’s your prerogative - enjoy your skepticism.

jmlanzaf

@MFeld said:

@rmpsrpms said:

@MFeld said:

@rmpsrpms said:

@MFeld said:

@rmpsrpms said:
I always thought that 1919 Lincoln Cent which was graded MS69RD or whatever was fake as well. Just too perfect to be true. Hmm, 1919.

Then you thought wrong about the 1919 cent. There isn’t anything the least bit questionable about it. And there’s nothing unusual about that date with respect to counterfeits.

It has always looked a bit "off" to me, but I have never seen it in-hand. So indeed it is a bit questionable.

@robec said:

@rmpsrpms said:
I always thought that 1919 Lincoln Cent which was graded MS69RD or whatever was fake as well. Just too perfect to be true. Hmm, 1919.

From what I’ve read there were a few other coins in that roll that graded MS68.
From Mr. Blay

This makes me question it even more. Coins were not distributed in rolls in 1919. Sounds like the super-Cent probably came from a counterfeit roll of counterfeits. Even the best of us can be duped.

I can’t tell whether you're trying to be funny, stir the pot or don’t understand that a large number of highly knowledgeable numismatists have seen the coin in hand and have no doubt regarding its authenticity. That includes the graders at PCGS. But maybe you (not even having seen the coin) are right and all of the experts who have seen it in hand are wrong.

I'm not trying to be funny at all. The coin is "off". It's too pristine, too well-struck, literally too perfect to be true. It's not the first time folks would be wrong about a coin, or a whole "roll" of coins as it seems.

Do you own it or have some stake/ conflict of interest in ensuring its provenance?

No, I don’t own it or have any stake or conflict of interest. I’m just puzzled by your repeated questioning of it. But it’s your prerogative - enjoy your skepticism.

More proof that facts simply don't matter.

Martin

@jmlanzaf said:

@MFeld said:

@rmpsrpms said:

@MFeld said:

@rmpsrpms said:

@MFeld said:

@rmpsrpms said:
I always thought that 1919 Lincoln Cent which was graded MS69RD or whatever was fake as well. Just too perfect to be true. Hmm, 1919.

Then you thought wrong about the 1919 cent. There isn’t anything the least bit questionable about it. And there’s nothing unusual about that date with respect to counterfeits.

It has always looked a bit "off" to me, but I have never seen it in-hand. So indeed it is a bit questionable.

@robec said:

@rmpsrpms said:
I always thought that 1919 Lincoln Cent which was graded MS69RD or whatever was fake as well. Just too perfect to be true. Hmm, 1919.

From what I’ve read there were a few other coins in that roll that graded MS68.
From Mr. Blay

This makes me question it even more. Coins were not distributed in rolls in 1919. Sounds like the super-Cent probably came from a counterfeit roll of counterfeits. Even the best of us can be duped.

I can’t tell whether you're trying to be funny, stir the pot or don’t understand that a large number of highly knowledgeable numismatists have seen the coin in hand and have no doubt regarding its authenticity. That includes the graders at PCGS. But maybe you (not even having seen the coin) are right and all of the experts who have seen it in hand are wrong.

I'm not trying to be funny at all. The coin is "off". It's too pristine, too well-struck, literally too perfect to be true. It's not the first time folks would be wrong about a coin, or a whole "roll" of coins as it seems.

Do you own it or have some stake/ conflict of interest in ensuring its provenance?

No, I don’t own it or have any stake or conflict of interest. I’m just puzzled by your repeated questioning of it. But it’s your prerogative - enjoy your skepticism.

More proof that facts simply don't matter.

How true on so many levels these days

Martin

FlyingAl

Here is an image of the 1919 cent in question. It is obviously genuine.

I find it more than plausible that an original bag of 1919 cents could have survived into the 1950s and 1960s, where they were then rolled due to some series of circumstances. This would not have been uncommon, as original bags of memorial cents can still be bought today.

rmpsrpms

@MFeld said:

@rmpsrpms said:

@MFeld said:

@rmpsrpms said:

@MFeld said:

@rmpsrpms said:
I always thought that 1919 Lincoln Cent which was graded MS69RD or whatever was fake as well. Just too perfect to be true. Hmm, 1919.

Then you thought wrong about the 1919 cent. There isn’t anything the least bit questionable about it. And there’s nothing unusual about that date with respect to counterfeits.

It has always looked a bit "off" to me, but I have never seen it in-hand. So indeed it is a bit questionable.

@robec said:

@rmpsrpms said:
I always thought that 1919 Lincoln Cent which was graded MS69RD or whatever was fake as well. Just too perfect to be true. Hmm, 1919.

From what I’ve read there were a few other coins in that roll that graded MS68.
From Mr. Blay

This makes me question it even more. Coins were not distributed in rolls in 1919. Sounds like the super-Cent probably came from a counterfeit roll of counterfeits. Even the best of us can be duped.

I can’t tell whether you're trying to be funny, stir the pot or don’t understand that a large number of highly knowledgeable numismatists have seen the coin in hand and have no doubt regarding its authenticity. That includes the graders at PCGS. But maybe you (not even having seen the coin) are right and all of the experts who have seen it in hand are wrong.

I'm not trying to be funny at all. The coin is "off". It's too pristine, too well-struck, literally too perfect to be true. It's not the first time folks would be wrong about a coin, or a whole "roll" of coins as it seems.

Do you own it or have some stake/ conflict of interest in ensuring its provenance?

No, I don’t own it or have any stake or conflict of interest. I’m just puzzled by your repeated questioning of it. But it’s your prerogative - enjoy your skepticism.

And it's your prerogative to enjoy your dogmatic acceptance of an obvious fake. Really, do you believe that such a perfect coin both in terms of surface condition (lack of any bag marks or other issues) and preservation (minimal toning or other environmental issues) could exist after over 100 years? I've searched thousands of (truly) original bankwrapped rolls of Cents from the 30's through the 50's, and I've never seen a coin in this state of preservation. It's like it was minted yesterday...and it probably was.

rmpsrpms

@FlyingAl said:
Here is an image of the 1919 cent in question. It is obviously genuine.

I find it more than plausible that an original bag of 1919 cents could have survived into the 1950s and 1960s, where they were then rolled due to some series of circumstances. This would not have been uncommon, as original bags of memorial cents can still be bought today.

Yes indeed it is a nice Cent and I can see why folks could be fooled.

If an original bag had been found, then many rolls of such coins would be available.

Slade01

@rmpsrpms said:

@MFeld said:

@rmpsrpms said:

@MFeld said:

@rmpsrpms said:

@MFeld said:

@rmpsrpms said:
I always thought that 1919 Lincoln Cent which was graded MS69RD or whatever was fake as well. Just too perfect to be true. Hmm, 1919.

Then you thought wrong about the 1919 cent. There isn’t anything the least bit questionable about it. And there’s nothing unusual about that date with respect to counterfeits.

It has always looked a bit "off" to me, but I have never seen it in-hand. So indeed it is a bit questionable.

@robec said:

@rmpsrpms said:
I always thought that 1919 Lincoln Cent which was graded MS69RD or whatever was fake as well. Just too perfect to be true. Hmm, 1919.

From what I’ve read there were a few other coins in that roll that graded MS68.
From Mr. Blay

This makes me question it even more. Coins were not distributed in rolls in 1919. Sounds like the super-Cent probably came from a counterfeit roll of counterfeits. Even the best of us can be duped.

I can’t tell whether you're trying to be funny, stir the pot or don’t understand that a large number of highly knowledgeable numismatists have seen the coin in hand and have no doubt regarding its authenticity. That includes the graders at PCGS. But maybe you (not even having seen the coin) are right and all of the experts who have seen it in hand are wrong.

I'm not trying to be funny at all. The coin is "off". It's too pristine, too well-struck, literally too perfect to be true. It's not the first time folks would be wrong about a coin, or a whole "roll" of coins as it seems.

Do you own it or have some stake/ conflict of interest in ensuring its provenance?

No, I don’t own it or have any stake or conflict of interest. I’m just puzzled by your repeated questioning of it. But it’s your prerogative - enjoy your skepticism.

And it's your prerogative to enjoy your dogmatic acceptance of an obvious fake. Really, do you believe that such a perfect coin both in terms of surface condition (lack of any bag marks or other issues) and preservation (minimal toning or other environmental issues) could exist after over 100 years? I've searched thousands of (truly) original bankwrapped rolls of Cents from the 30's through the 50's, and I've never seen a coin in this state of preservation. It's like it was minted yesterday...and it probably was.

Do you not understand that Philadelphia was the higher quality mint from 1909-1921 and then again in 1923 -- every single year the population report demonstrates that FACT.

There are far more ultra-quality red Lincolns from Philly in every single year. 1919 is not at all unusual, there just happened to be one that was better than the rest. By random chance alone it is highly probable that one of those early years would have had it and it turned out to be 1919.

Before you respond, don't even bother, just actually look at the PCGS population report and explain how your tin foil hat thinking fits with the facts. Are those 20 years of counterfeits? Get real.

rmpsrpms

I had always suspected this coin of being a counterfeit, but have held my opinion to myself until I read the quote from Stewart Blay regarding the BU roll (hat tip to @Robec). This entire story, while it sounds good to the layman, stinks of tomfoolery and made me brave the expected rebuke from the forumites.

And yes, it may be true that there are many years of counterfeits out there. Remember the Omega counterfeits were essentialy undetectable. When something is too good to be true, it probably is, especially when its "story" is bunk.

Rexford

@rmpsrpms said:

@MFeld said:

@rmpsrpms said:

@MFeld said:

@rmpsrpms said:

@MFeld said:

@rmpsrpms said:
I always thought that 1919 Lincoln Cent which was graded MS69RD or whatever was fake as well. Just too perfect to be true. Hmm, 1919.

Then you thought wrong about the 1919 cent. There isn’t anything the least bit questionable about it. And there’s nothing unusual about that date with respect to counterfeits.

It has always looked a bit "off" to me, but I have never seen it in-hand. So indeed it is a bit questionable.

@robec said:

@rmpsrpms said:
I always thought that 1919 Lincoln Cent which was graded MS69RD or whatever was fake as well. Just too perfect to be true. Hmm, 1919.

From what I’ve read there were a few other coins in that roll that graded MS68.
From Mr. Blay

This makes me question it even more. Coins were not distributed in rolls in 1919. Sounds like the super-Cent probably came from a counterfeit roll of counterfeits. Even the best of us can be duped.

I can’t tell whether you're trying to be funny, stir the pot or don’t understand that a large number of highly knowledgeable numismatists have seen the coin in hand and have no doubt regarding its authenticity. That includes the graders at PCGS. But maybe you (not even having seen the coin) are right and all of the experts who have seen it in hand are wrong.

I'm not trying to be funny at all. The coin is "off". It's too pristine, too well-struck, literally too perfect to be true. It's not the first time folks would be wrong about a coin, or a whole "roll" of coins as it seems.

Do you own it or have some stake/ conflict of interest in ensuring its provenance?

No, I don’t own it or have any stake or conflict of interest. I’m just puzzled by your repeated questioning of it. But it’s your prerogative - enjoy your skepticism.

And it's your prerogative to enjoy your dogmatic acceptance of an obvious fake. Really, do you believe that such a perfect coin both in terms of surface condition (lack of any bag marks or other issues) and preservation (minimal toning or other environmental issues) could exist after over 100 years?

Yes. There are Indian cents that are essentially as nice. Thanks for the laugh though.

jmlanzaf

@rmpsrpms said:
I had always suspected this coin of being a counterfeit, but have held my opinion to myself until I read the quote from Stewart Blay regarding the BU roll (hat tip to @Robec). This entire story, while it sounds good to the layman, stinks of tomfoolery and made me brave the expected rebuke from the forumites.

And yes, it may be true that there are many years of counterfeits out there. Remember the Omega counterfeits were essentialy undetectable. When something is too good to be true, it probably is, especially when its "story" is bunk.

And if it is such an excellent counterfeit, where are the others? There should be dozens of them. One out of a billion coins survived in exceptional quality. That actually speaks to originality rather than tomfoolery. Who would go to the trouble of creating the best counterfeit cent ever and then make only one? There's no profit in that.

Other than the exceptional condition, could you point to the indicators that it is a counterfeit? You can't. And you don't care to. Because you'd rather believe your theory without facts than bother to look at the facts.

You have not presented even the tiniest piece of evidence that this is anything but genuine.

Walkerguy21D

I thought cents were available in rolls well prior to 1919; at least by 1909, if not earlier.

The cent in question does seem to show a little rim tone on both sides. Which if stored in a paper roll for a long period of time makes sense.

jmlanzaf

@Walkerguy21D said:
I thought cents were available in rolls well prior to 1919; at least by 1909, if not earlier.

The cent in question does seem to show a little rim tone on both sides. Which if stored in a paper roll for a long period of time makes sense.

You are correct. But I think the issue is always over what "original roll" means. They weren't distributed that way. But whether it was in a roll or a bag first makes little difference to the somewhat silly argument being made here.

jesbroken

Don't understand the premise that it looks too good, so must be counterfeit. Are all the 40 or so MS67+ and MS68's that PCGS has graded counterfeit also because they look so good? Here is a comparison and why cannot an MS69 exist when so many MS68 and MS67+'s survived?
Jim

rmpsrpms

@Walkerguy21D said:
I thought cents were available in rolls well prior to 1919; at least by 1909, if not earlier.

The cent in question does seem to show a little rim tone on both sides. Which if stored in a paper roll for a long period of time makes sense.

If you look back at the patent record, you can learn a lot about the history of coin rolls. It's true that coins have been hand-rolled going back a very long time, but this was not done with uncirculated coins by the mint to distribute to the banks, or by banks to distribute to the public or commerce. All distribution of new coin was done in bags, small and large. Rolls were used to count and certify circulated coins. Rolling machines were invented to help with this process as a response to the larger number of coins being sent back from trolleys and arcade games. The biggest issue was certification of count, since the companies got cash or deposit credit for their rolled coin and the banks needed to ensure an accurate count. You will not find a roll of coins distributed by the mint, or a company like Brinks, or a bank, until around 1934. Any roll of new coins prior to that is a roll made-up from old coins.

rmpsrpms

@jesbroken said:
Don't understand the premise that it looks too good, so must be counterfeit. Are all the 40 or so MS67+ and MS68's that PCGS has graded counterfeit also because they look so good? Here is a comparison and why cannot an MS69 exist when so many MS68 and MS67+'s survived?
Jim

There have been counterfeits made for a very long time.

I've been pondering the TVs of these "struck yesterday" coins, and they look a lot different from the first published image I saw of the MS69, which was taken outside the holder. The one I'm talking about is shown below. I expect the others from this "roll" look similar, and are all from the same VEDS obv die. It's pretty clear that very few coins were struck by this die prior to this coin, which is a further clue to its being counterfeit.