@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.
@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.
And some of those rolls “made up from old coins” contained examples of fantastic quality. Just because you apparently haven’t encountered them, doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. They’re not “too good to be true”, but rather, (genuine) wonderful exceptions to what’s typically encountered.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
And some of those rolls “made up from old coins” contained examples of fantastic quality. Just because you apparently haven’t encountered them, doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. They’re not “too good to be true”, but rather, (genuine) wonderful exceptions to what’s typically encountered.
Yes, there is "reasonable doubt" to think that a bag of 1919 (and similar bags from other dates) had nice coins in them. But so many virtually mark-free coins, with pristine surfaces, all struck from brand-new dies? I'd wager that these coins were simply not subject to enough scrutiny, similar to the Omegas and others.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
@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.
By that logic, all DMPL Morgans are counterfeit because they are really strikes off fresh dies.
Normally, I wouldn't bother telling someone this. You can't get the 1000th strike until you get the first strike. Every die has a first strike and a second strike...
And some of those rolls “made up from old coins” contained examples of fantastic quality. Just because you apparently haven’t encountered them, doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. They’re not “too good to be true”, but rather, (genuine) wonderful exceptions to what’s typically encountered.
Yes, there is "reasonable doubt" to think that a bag of 1919 (and similar bags from other dates) had nice coins in them. But so many virtually mark-free coins, with pristine surfaces, all struck from brand-new dies? I'd wager that these coins were simply not subject to enough scrutiny, similar to the Omegas and others.
@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.
By that logic, all DMPL Morgans are counterfeit because they are really strikes off fresh dies.
Normally, I wouldn't bother telling someone this. You can't get the 1000th strike until you get the first strike. Every die has a first strike and a second strike...
Over the years, I’ve seen all sorts of rolls of high quality (100+ year-old) mint state coins struck from the same die. Among the ones that quickly come to mind were 1909-VDB Lincoln cents,1883 No Cent nickels, 1916-D Barber quarters, 1916 Barber dimes and even a couple of rolls of Seated Liberty dimes from the 1880’s. Apparently, I was viewing large quantities of counterfeits. 😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
And some of those rolls “made up from old coins” contained examples of fantastic quality. Just because you apparently haven’t encountered them, doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. They’re not “too good to be true”, but rather, (genuine) wonderful exceptions to what’s typically encountered.
Yes, there is "reasonable doubt" to think that a bag of 1919 (and similar bags from other dates) had nice coins in them. But so many virtually mark-free coins, with pristine surfaces, all struck from brand-new dies? I'd wager that these coins were simply not subject to enough scrutiny, similar to the Omegas and others.
@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.
By that logic, all DMPL Morgans are counterfeit because they are really strikes off fresh dies.
Normally, I wouldn't bother telling someone this. You can't get the 1000th strike until you get the first strike. Every die has a first strike and a second strike...
Over the years, I’ve seen all sorts of rolls of high quality (100+ year-old) mint state coins struck from the same die. Among the ones that quickly come to mind were 1909-VDB Lincoln cents,1883 No Cent nickels, 1916-D Barber quarters, 1916 Barber dimes and even a couple of rolls of Seated Liberty dimes from the 1880’s. Apparently, I was viewing large quantities of counterfeits. 😉
By that logic, all DMPL Morgans are counterfeit because they are really strikes off fresh dies.
Normally, I wouldn't bother telling someone this. You can't get the 1000th strike until you get the first strike. Every die has a first strike and a second strike...
We all know that most Morgans did not see circulation, so there were many bags available to pick and choose from. This was not the case for Lincoln Cents, which were struck for commerce (rather than to appease the silver lobby) and few BU coins were put aside. It would really be a bit of a miracle to find a bag of Cents from this era.
Note also that I did not say being VEDS proves the coin is a counterfeit, just that it is another clue.
@MFeld said:
Over the years, I’ve seen all sorts of rolls of high quality (100+ year-old) mint state coins struck from the same die. Among the ones that quickly come to mind were 1909-VDB Lincoln cents,1883 No Cent nickels, 1916-D Barber quarters, 1916 Barber dimes and even a couple of rolls of Seated Liberty dimes from the 1880’s. Apparently, I was viewing large quantities of counterfeits. 😉
It may be true. I'd be very suspicious of any large quantity (roll or bag) of BU classic coins, of extremely high quality (like they were struck yesterday!), and all from the same die in Very Early Die State. My suspicion is that a clever counterfeiter has been duping a lot of collectors and dealers for a very long time.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
At one time I was a roll collector. I didn't buy rolls but did assemble rolls of cents. These "assembled" rolls were just the best of the best I could find. This was long before grading services even existed and before we started using 10 grades for MS.
I sold these rolls to dealers long long ago. Were they not of the quality of high MS but certainly mid MS. I was just a teenager (1960's).
The point is that dealers may have done the same, pull the best of the best and tube them and then roll them.
I can believe that magnificent rolls were thus assembled and stashed.
I quit when college came along and sold mine all off.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that if the Mint didn't roll them it doesn't mean that experienced dealers didn't.
bob
Registry: CC lowballs (boblindstrom), bobinvegas1989@yahoo.com
By that logic, all DMPL Morgans are counterfeit because they are really strikes off fresh dies.
Normally, I wouldn't bother telling someone this. You can't get the 1000th strike until you get the first strike. Every die has a first strike and a second strike...
We all know that most Morgans did not see circulation, so there were many bags available to pick and choose from. This was not the case for Lincoln Cents, which were struck for commerce (rather than to appease the silver lobby) and few BU coins were put aside. It would really be a bit of a miracle to find a bag of Cents from this era.
Note also that I did not say being VEDS proves the coin is a counterfeit, just that it is another clue.
@MFeld said:
Over the years, I’ve seen all sorts of rolls of high quality (100+ year-old) mint state coins struck from the same die. Among the ones that quickly come to mind were 1909-VDB Lincoln cents,1883 No Cent nickels, 1916-D Barber quarters, 1916 Barber dimes and even a couple of rolls of Seated Liberty dimes from the 1880’s. Apparently, I was viewing large quantities of counterfeits. 😉
It may be true. I'd be very suspicious of any large quantity (roll or bag) of BU classic coins, of extremely high quality (like they were struck yesterday!), and all from the same die in Very Early Die State. My suspicion is that a clever counterfeiter has been duping a lot of collectors and dealers for a very long time.
Why would the “clever counterfeiter” bother with cents, when he could dupe collectors much more thoroughly with higher denominations?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@AUandAG said:
At one time I was a roll collector. I didn't buy rolls but did assemble rolls of cents. These "assembled" rolls were just the best of the best I could find. This was long before grading services even existed and before we started using 10 grades for MS.
I sold these rolls to dealers long long ago. Were they not of the quality of high MS but certainly mid MS. I was just a teenager (1960's).
The point is that dealers may have done the same, pull the best of the best and tube them and then roll them.
I can believe that magnificent rolls were thus assembled and stashed.
I quit when college came along and sold mine all off.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that if the Mint didn't roll them it doesn't mean that experienced dealers didn't.
bob
I still do the same thing. I accumulate BU rolls, then when I get enough of one date/MM (20+) I go through them looking for varieties, and pull out the high grade coins as well as the culls. I keep the varieties and high grade rolls, and spend the culls. I have a guy who picks up all my mid-grade rolls, and the process starts again.
That said, the high grade rolls are never represented by a single die pair, but often many pairs since only very few coins from each roll qualify to be kept. And in doing this for literally thousands of rolls, I have yet to find an MS69 coin. Business strike coins, thrown by the press into a pile, dumped into a bag, then put into a rolling machine, have contact marks on them. The highest grade I've ever seen from a BU roll (OBW) is MS67+.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
Why would the “clever counterfeiter” bother with cents, when he could dupe collectors much more thoroughly with higher denominations?
I don't know. Maybe you need to think like a criminal to understand criminals. And why do you think "he" stuck just to Cents? Omega went for the holy grail 1907HR and other Gold coins. Henning did Nickels. How much do you think was spent on that "roll" of 1919 Cents? Probably enough to justify the work I'd bet.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
Why would the “clever counterfeiter” bother with cents, when he could dupe collectors much more thoroughly with higher denominations?
I don't know. Maybe you need to think like a criminal to understand criminals. And why do you think "he" stuck just to Cents? Omega went for the holy grail 1907HR and other Gold coins. Henning did Nickels. How much do you think was spent on that "roll" of 1919 Cents? Probably enough to justify the work I'd bet.
I understand what you are trying to say, but in this case, I would leave it be. The cents shown are all 100% genuine with absolutely NO DOUBT of their genuine nature and condition. Im not sure you want to continue more on this direction. Counterfeiting of that quality was just not possible, and they have been known long before technology could make a counterfeit with the perfect planchet, perfect strike etc. Ever seen a Henning that looked like that for example??
Anyway, it is good to look for the problems, but must be done in context. I would let this go @rmpsrpms. Just my two cents!!
New England Rarities...Dealer In Colonial Coinage and Americana
Why would the “clever counterfeiter” bother with cents, when he could dupe collectors much more thoroughly with higher denominations?
I don't know. Maybe you need to think like a criminal to understand criminals. And why do you think "he" stuck just to Cents? Omega went for the holy grail 1907HR and other Gold coins. Henning did Nickels. How much do you think was spent on that "roll" of 1919 Cents? Probably enough to justify the work I'd bet.
I understand what you are trying to say, but in this case, I would leave it be. The cents shown are all 100% genuine with absolutely NO DOUBT of their genuine nature and condition. Im not sure you want to continue more on this direction. Counterfeiting of that quality was just not possible, and they have been known long before technology could make a counterfeit with the perfect planchet, perfect strike etc. Ever seen a Henning that looked like that for example??
Anyway, it is good to look for the problems, but must be done in context. I would let this go @rmpsrpms. Just my two cents!!
Does that mean you own two of them?
Seriously, these coins really seem too good to be true. I do understand folks wanting it not to be the case, since it would imply counterfeiters have been debasing the upper echelons of the condition rarity market for some time, and at this point it would be very difficult to back out of all the shenanigans, if it were even possible. Certainly with an environment of "market acceptability" these coins will maintain the veil of authenticity. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone that I am right, just giving the facts and interpretation as I see them.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
@Aotearoa said:
And here I thought the discussion would be about a Mercury dime...
Yes indeed, and I am sorry for spinning this away from the original discussion. I actually thought it was interesting that the Dime and Cent were both from 1919, and both appeared to be counterfeits.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
@rmpsrpms , what experience do you have with counterfeit detection? Let’s say the cent were fake, what type of counterfeit would it be (how would the counterfeit dies be made, in other words)? There is only one possible answer to that question.
@Manifest_Destiny said:
That's impressive. It should get the Full Beard (FB) designation.
Actually the beard seem weird to me. Too much of a straight line up to the ear? And seems to have odd details. But then I'm no expert, and am more used to lower grade Lincoln Cents!
Why would the “clever counterfeiter” bother with cents, when he could dupe collectors much more thoroughly with higher denominations?
I don't know. Maybe you need to think like a criminal to understand criminals. And why do you think "he" stuck just to Cents? Omega went for the holy grail 1907HR and other Gold coins. Henning did Nickels. How much do you think was spent on that "roll" of 1919 Cents? Probably enough to justify the work I'd bet.
Actually, I doubt that roll sold for much of anything. A random BU roll of 1919 cents still doesn't bring a King's ransom.
And making crap up doesn't count as facts. Other than the statistical anomaly - aren't all top pops statistical anomalies? - can you point to one thing about that coin that appears counterfeit?
We'll wait... we've waited 2 days, what's another 20 years?
Well, for me, it is just what I mentioned... seems way too much fine detail in the beard.... when compared to the hair. But.... I have not seen the coin in person, and only going based on the photo shown. If I saw the photo on ebay, I would be wondering and suspicious; probably would not buy. Is it fake? beats me. But I have learned from years of experience.... that if something just doesn't seem right.... ....well we all use our own judgement.
Why would the “clever counterfeiter” bother with cents, when he could dupe collectors much more thoroughly with higher denominations?
I don't know. Maybe you need to think like a criminal to understand criminals. And why do you think "he" stuck just to Cents? Omega went for the holy grail 1907HR and other Gold coins. Henning did Nickels. How much do you think was spent on that "roll" of 1919 Cents? Probably enough to justify the work I'd bet.
I understand what you are trying to say, but in this case, I would leave it be. The cents shown are all 100% genuine with absolutely NO DOUBT of their genuine nature and condition. Im not sure you want to continue more on this direction. Counterfeiting of that quality was just not possible, and they have been known long before technology could make a counterfeit with the perfect planchet, perfect strike etc. Ever seen a Henning that looked like that for example??
Anyway, it is good to look for the problems, but must be done in context. I would let this go @rmpsrpms. Just my two cents!!
Does that mean you own two of them?
Seriously, these coins really seem too good to be true. I do understand folks wanting it not to be the case, since it would imply counterfeiters have been debasing the upper echelons of the condition rarity market for some time, and at this point it would be very difficult to back out of all the shenanigans, if it were even possible. Certainly with an environment of "market acceptability" these coins will maintain the veil of authenticity. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone that I am right, just giving the facts and interpretation as I see them.
@tincup said:
Well, for me, it is just what I mentioned... seems way too much fine detail in the beard.... when compared to the hair. But.... I have not seen the coin in person, and only going based on the photo shown. If I saw the photo on ebay, I would be wondering and suspicious; probably would not buy. Is it fake? beats me. But I have learned from years of experience.... that if something just doesn't seem right.... ....well we all use our own judgement.
Look at any single 1919 cent in gem MS and you'll see the same thing.
Why would the “clever counterfeiter” bother with cents, when he could dupe collectors much more thoroughly with higher denominations?
I don't know. Maybe you need to think like a criminal to understand criminals. And why do you think "he" stuck just to Cents? Omega went for the holy grail 1907HR and other Gold coins. Henning did Nickels. How much do you think was spent on that "roll" of 1919 Cents? Probably enough to justify the work I'd bet.
I understand what you are trying to say, but in this case, I would leave it be. The cents shown are all 100% genuine with absolutely NO DOUBT of their genuine nature and condition. Im not sure you want to continue more on this direction. Counterfeiting of that quality was just not possible, and they have been known long before technology could make a counterfeit with the perfect planchet, perfect strike etc. Ever seen a Henning that looked like that for example??
Anyway, it is good to look for the problems, but must be done in context. I would let this go @rmpsrpms. Just my two cents!!
Does that mean you own two of them?
Seriously, these coins really seem too good to be true. I do understand folks wanting it not to be the case, since it would imply counterfeiters have been debasing the upper echelons of the condition rarity market for some time, and at this point it would be very difficult to back out of all the shenanigans, if it were even possible. Certainly with an environment of "market acceptability" these coins will maintain the veil of authenticity. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone that I am right, just giving the facts and interpretation as I see them.
I own or or handled as a dealer NONE of those, however just at a “high level” of numismatics will tell you these are clearly correct and right coins. There is no conspiracy here. I am a dealer in pre-1793 American coinage, and without direct knowledge I can tell from image the coins are correct. I’m just meaning you are digging yourself a hole that is based on factually INCORRECT theories or thoughts. The high grade Lincoln’s originally talked about are true coins. This is off topic to the post, but again, I would suggest to you that anyone knowledgeable knows those are proper and correct coins. Reputation for you would be best to let that go
New England Rarities...Dealer In Colonial Coinage and Americana
Since we're way off topic here anyway: the only Blay coins that I didn't like, not that I thought they were fakes, just that the backstory was iffy, were the 1958 doubled dies. The 1919 cent is stunning.
@FlyingAl said:
I think we need to start going down the route @Rexford pointed out. If the 1919 cent is fake, how was it made and what are the tells it's fake?
Unfortunately I don't know for sure without examining the coin. It's unfortunate that an analysis was never made. Are there examples of worn coins from this same die? How about lower-grade coins from the same die. Do the lower grade coins match the supercoins in all dimensional aspects?
I own or or handled as a dealer NONE of those, however just at a “high level” of numismatics will tell you these are clearly correct and right coins. There is no conspiracy here. I am a dealer in pre-1793 American coinage, and without direct knowledge I can tell from image the coins are correct. I’m just meaning you are digging yourself a hole that is based on factually INCORRECT theories or thoughts. The high grade Lincoln’s originally talked about are true coins. This is off topic to the post, but again, I would suggest to you that anyone knowledgeable knows those are proper and correct coins. Reputation for you would be best to let that go
I'm not worried about my reputation, just the truth. If I am wrong, it's great for the hobby, and wonderful that such incredibly beautiful coins have survived through the years. If I am right, no one will really care and those coins will continue to be "market acceptable" based on all the adamant feedback from my posts. The owners will go on thinking they have a "condition rarity" and not really care about me or these posts.
Right back at you. And reported for your personal attack.
@jmlanzaf said:
Actually, I doubt that roll sold for much of anything. A random BU roll of 1919 cents still doesn't bring a King's ransom.
I bet the buyer paid thousands for that roll. That may not be much to you, but it is to me.
@ChrisH821 said:
Since we're way off topic here anyway: the only Blay coins that I didn't like, not that I thought they were fakes, just that the backstory was iffy, were the 1958 doubled dies. The 1919 cent is stunning.
Indeed it is.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
@FlyingAl said:
I think we need to start going down the route @Rexford pointed out. If the 1919 cent is fake, how was it made and what are the tells it's fake?
Unfortunately I don't know for sure without examining the coin.
@FlyingAl said:
I think we need to start going down the route @Rexford pointed out. If the 1919 cent is fake, how was it made and what are the tells it's fake?
Unfortunately I don't know for sure without examining the coin.
Case closed. It’s a genuine coin.
Hahaha! Anyway, seems a good closing argument. I'd hope to hear no more about it.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
@rmpsrpms said:
I bet the buyer paid thousands for that roll. That may not be much to you, but it is to me.
Does that mean that 1) you think the highest quality coins in the roll were counterfeit and 2) the counterfeiter (or an accomplice) was the one who sold the roll to Stewart Blay?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@rmpsrpms said:
I bet the buyer paid thousands for that roll. That may not be much to you, but it is to me.
Does that mean that 1) you think the highest quality coins in the roll were counterfeit and 2) the counterfeiter (or an accomplice) was the one who sold the roll to Stewart Blay?
Partial "yes", and probable "no".
For sure I believe the MS69 and any other high grade coins from the same die indeed are counterfeit.
But it's more likely that the "roll" passed through several hands prior to the final owner buying it. I'd expect a "clever counterfeiter" to cover his tracks pretty well.
It might be instructive for the owner of the roll prior to the final owner to come forward to tell where he bought it. For sure that would improve the quality of the narrative, either direction.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
@rmpsrpms said:
I bet the buyer paid thousands for that roll. That may not be much to you, but it is to me.
Does that mean that 1) you think the highest quality coins in the roll were counterfeit and 2) the counterfeiter (or an accomplice) was the one who sold the roll to Stewart Blay?
Partial "yes", and probable "no".
For sure I believe the MS69 and any other high grade coins from the same die indeed are counterfeit.
But it's more likely that the "roll" passed through several hands prior to the final owner buying it. I'd expect a "clever counterfeiter" to cover his tracks pretty well.
It might be instructive for the owner of the roll prior to the final owner to come forward to tell where he bought it. For sure that would improve the quality of the narrative, either direction.
Still waiting for one actual fact.
PCGS says real. Stewart Blay says real. We've got a lot of facts on that side of the ledger.
If you ever come up with one fact in the other side, there's a discussion. Until then, this borders on libel.
If you ever come up with one fact in the other side, there's a discussion. Until then, this borders on libel.
So are you the owner, and are threatening me with libel since I believe your coin is a counterfeit? I'm doubting it will be very difficult to prove the coin is counterfeit, if I am ever allowed/forced to do so.
Edited to add: reported for threats
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
Why would the “clever counterfeiter” bother with cents, when he could dupe collectors much more thoroughly with higher denominations?
I don't know. Maybe you need to think like a criminal to understand criminals. And why do you think "he" stuck just to Cents? Omega went for the holy grail 1907HR and other Gold coins. Henning did Nickels. How much do you think was spent on that "roll" of 1919 Cents? Probably enough to justify the work I'd bet.
I understand what you are trying to say, but in this case, I would leave it be. The cents shown are all 100% genuine with absolutely NO DOUBT of their genuine nature and condition. Im not sure you want to continue more on this direction. Counterfeiting of that quality was just not possible, and they have been known long before technology could make a counterfeit with the perfect planchet, perfect strike etc. Ever seen a Henning that looked like that for example??
Anyway, it is good to look for the problems, but must be done in context. I would let this go @rmpsrpms. Just my two cents!!
Does that mean you own two of them?
Seriously, these coins really seem too good to be true. I do understand folks wanting it not to be the case, since it would imply counterfeiters have been debasing the upper echelons of the condition rarity market for some time, and at this point it would be very difficult to back out of all the shenanigans, if it were even possible. Certainly with an environment of "market acceptability" these coins will maintain the veil of authenticity. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone that I am right, just giving the facts and interpretation as I see them.
How is it possible to produce such a high quality counterfeit in 1919 if nobody in the last 50 years has even come close to manufacturing a counterfeit of this quality. Sorry to say this harshly but you are making a fool of yourself and wasting everyone’s time with your insane thinking
@Walkerlover said:
How is it possible to produce such a high quality counterfeit in 1919 if nobody in the last 50 years has even come close to manufacturing a counterfeit of this quality. Sorry to say this harshly but you are making a fool of yourself and wasting everyone’s time with your insane thinking
Nobody said the counterfeits were made in 1919. I am not sure when the "roll" was purchased, but I would assume it was less than 20 years ago. The coins could have been made any time before that.
Please try to stick with the facts and civil discussion. You're the third forum member I've had to report for personal attacks.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
@Walkerlover said:
How is it possible to produce such a high quality counterfeit in 1919 if nobody in the last 50 years has even come close to manufacturing a counterfeit of this quality. Sorry to say this harshly but you are making a fool of yourself and wasting everyone’s time with your insane thinking
Nobody said the counterfeits were made in 1919. I am not sure when the "roll" was purchased, but I would assume it was less than 20 years ago. The coins could have been made any time before that.
Please try to stick with the facts and civil discussion. You're the third forum member I've had to report for personal attacks.
Should I report you for making delusional statements and derailing this thread. So you are implying that the purchaser of the 1919 that paid around $1,000,000 bought a counterfeit without any reasonable evidence or proof. Making false statements is that reportable? You have no FACTS TO STICK WITH LOL
@Walkerlover said:
How is it possible to produce such a high quality counterfeit in 1919 if nobody in the last 50 years has even come close to manufacturing a counterfeit of this quality. Sorry to say this harshly but you are making a fool of yourself and wasting everyone’s time with your insane thinking
Nobody said the counterfeits were made in 1919. I am not sure when the "roll" was purchased, but I would assume it was less than 20 years ago. The coins could have been made any time before that.
Please try to stick with the facts and civil discussion. You're the third forum member I've had to report for personal attacks.
“Insane thinking” isn’t less of a fact than the coin being a counterfeit. If you knew your stuff about authentication then you would have provided me with a proper answer to my earlier question. I think people are calling your thinking insane because it has no logical basis in reality.
@Walkerlover said:
How is it possible to produce such a high quality counterfeit in 1919 if nobody in the last 50 years has even come close to manufacturing a counterfeit of this quality. Sorry to say this harshly but you are making a fool of yourself and wasting everyone’s time with your insane thinking
Nobody said the counterfeits were made in 1919. I am not sure when the "roll" was purchased, but I would assume it was less than 20 years ago. The coins could have been made any time before that.
Please try to stick with the facts and civil discussion. You're the third forum member I've had to report for personal attacks.
The coin is in a PCGS 3.1 holder, used from 1993-1998. Given we know the coin was resubmitted, let's say it was placed in the holder in 1995. That's 29 years ago it was graded.
I'd say it would be pretty hard to create a counterfeit like this over thirty years ago.
@Walkerlover said:
How is it possible to produce such a high quality counterfeit in 1919 if nobody in the last 50 years has even come close to manufacturing a counterfeit of this quality. Sorry to say this harshly but you are making a fool of yourself and wasting everyone’s time with your insane thinking
Nobody said the counterfeits were made in 1919. I am not sure when the "roll" was purchased, but I would assume it was less than 20 years ago. The coins could have been made any time before that.
Please try to stick with the facts and civil discussion. You're the third forum member I've had to report for personal attacks.
The coin is in a PCGS 3.1 holder, used from 1993-1998. Given we know the coin was resubmitted, let's say it was placed in the holder in 1995. That's 29 years ago it was graded.
I'd say it would be pretty hard to create a counterfeit like this over thirty years ago.
Even today I would think impossible. And if it could be done the coin hobby is in huge trouble
@Walkerlover said:
Should I report you for making delusional statements and derailing this thread. So you are implying that the purchaser of the 1919 that paid around $1,000,000 bought a counterfeit without any reasonable evidence or proof. Making false statements is that reportable? You have no FACTS TO STICK WITH LOL
Go for it. My belief is the coin is counterfeit.
@Rexford said:
“Insane thinking” isn’t less of a fact than the coin being a counterfeit. If you knew your stuff about authentication then you would have provided me with a proper answer to my earlier question. I think people are calling your thinking insane because it has no logical basis in reality.
Personal attacks are very different from speculation about a coin's provenance.
I won't be able to prove the coin is a counterfeit until I examine it. That's not likely to happen, so all I can do is give my opinion and hope others will listen and agree. Some have. Others have not, but have engaged in civil discussion. Folks who have attacked me for giving my opinion lack the civility required to be a forum member here, IMO.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
@Walkerlover said:
Should I report you for making delusional statements and derailing this thread. So you are implying that the purchaser of the 1919 that paid around $1,000,000 bought a counterfeit without any reasonable evidence or proof. Making false statements is that reportable? You have no FACTS TO STICK WITH LOL
Go for it. My belief is the coin is counterfeit.
@Rexford said:
“Insane thinking” isn’t less of a fact than the coin being a counterfeit. If you knew your stuff about authentication then you would have provided me with a proper answer to my earlier question. I think people are calling your thinking insane because it has no logical basis in reality.
Personal attacks are very different from speculation about a coin's provenance.
I won't be able to prove the coin is a counterfeit until I examine it. That's not likely to happen, so all I can do is give my opinion and hope others will listen and agree. Some have. Others have not, but have engaged in civil discussion. Folks who attack me for giving my opinion lack the civility required to be a forum member here, IMO.
You said to stick to the facts. I was pointing out that your claims are no more factual than the statements you are criticizing. You have presented no evidence that the coins are counterfeit, yet you are “sure” of it. How? If you need to see the coin in hand to prove it’s counterfeit, then how are you sure right now that it is? And please, indulge us students and explain how you would prove your claim once you had the coin in hand.
@Walkerlover said:
Should I report you for making delusional statements and derailing this thread. So you are implying that the purchaser of the 1919 that paid around $1,000,000 bought a counterfeit without any reasonable evidence or proof. Making false statements is that reportable? You have no FACTS TO STICK WITH LOL
Go for it. My belief is the coin is counterfeit.
@Rexford said:
“Insane thinking” isn’t less of a fact than the coin being a counterfeit. If you knew your stuff about authentication then you would have provided me with a proper answer to my earlier question. I think people are calling your thinking insane because it has no logical basis in reality.
Personal attacks are very different from speculation about a coin's provenance.
I won't be able to prove the coin is a counterfeit until I examine it. That's not likely to happen, so all I can do is give my opinion and hope others will listen and agree. Some have. Others have not, but have engaged in civil discussion. Folks who have attacked me for giving my opinion lack the civility required to be a forum member here, IMO.
What are your credentials to pass judgment on this 1919 penny over the judgement of PCGS and CAC. Why is your judgement worth anything to anyone
@Rexford said:
If you need to see the coin in hand to prove it’s counterfeit, then how are you sure right now that it is? And please, indulge us students and explain how you would prove your claim once you had the coin in hand.
The coin just does not look right. Too perfect. Unlikely story.
If I had it in-hand, I'd compare it with other 1919 to check if there are any dimensional anomalies in the feature sizes or placements in XY and Z compared to BU and circulated coins from same year and mint. I'd also characterize the die through whatever markers it has to see if there are any circulated examples from that die. If the dimensions are correct, and there are circulated examples, then I'd conclude it is not counterfeit. If there are dimensional anomalies, and no circulated examples, then I'd have to conclude it is a counterfeit. How it was made is irrelevant.
Even today I would think impossible. And if it could be done the coin hobby is in huge trouble
I think you are significantly underestimating the criminal mind. And indeed, if I am correct, the hobby has been in huge trouble for decades.
@Walkerlover said:
What are your credentials to pass judgment on this 1919 penny over the judgement of PCGS and CAC. Why is your judgement worth anything to anyone
It's true that my opinion does not have a lot of value since I have not done the full analysis. However, I suspect PCGS and CAC also did not do the full analysis. I know that PCGS has made mistakes and put counterfeit and altered coins in slabs. I'm not sure if CAC has made similar mistakes.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
Comments
Sometime during the > @rmpsrpms said:
And some of those rolls “made up from old coins” contained examples of fantastic quality. Just because you apparently haven’t encountered them, doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. They’re not “too good to be true”, but rather, (genuine) wonderful exceptions to what’s typically encountered.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Yes, there is "reasonable doubt" to think that a bag of 1919 (and similar bags from other dates) had nice coins in them. But so many virtually mark-free coins, with pristine surfaces, all struck from brand-new dies? I'd wager that these coins were simply not subject to enough scrutiny, similar to the Omegas and others.
http://macrocoins.com
By that logic, all DMPL Morgans are counterfeit because they are really strikes off fresh dies.
Normally, I wouldn't bother telling someone this. You can't get the 1000th strike until you get the first strike. Every die has a first strike and a second strike...
It appears thst> @jmlanzaf said:
Over the years, I’ve seen all sorts of rolls of high quality (100+ year-old) mint state coins struck from the same die. Among the ones that quickly come to mind were 1909-VDB Lincoln cents,1883 No Cent nickels, 1916-D Barber quarters, 1916 Barber dimes and even a couple of rolls of Seated Liberty dimes from the 1880’s. Apparently, I was viewing large quantities of counterfeits. 😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
We're talking to ourselves.
If you eliminate the snide remarks, the above is an interesting read no matter what your position is on the subject matter.
peacockcoins
We all know that most Morgans did not see circulation, so there were many bags available to pick and choose from. This was not the case for Lincoln Cents, which were struck for commerce (rather than to appease the silver lobby) and few BU coins were put aside. It would really be a bit of a miracle to find a bag of Cents from this era.
Note also that I did not say being VEDS proves the coin is a counterfeit, just that it is another clue.
It may be true. I'd be very suspicious of any large quantity (roll or bag) of BU classic coins, of extremely high quality (like they were struck yesterday!), and all from the same die in Very Early Die State. My suspicion is that a clever counterfeiter has been duping a lot of collectors and dealers for a very long time.
http://macrocoins.com
At one time I was a roll collector. I didn't buy rolls but did assemble rolls of cents. These "assembled" rolls were just the best of the best I could find. This was long before grading services even existed and before we started using 10 grades for MS.
I sold these rolls to dealers long long ago. Were they not of the quality of high MS but certainly mid MS. I was just a teenager (1960's).
The point is that dealers may have done the same, pull the best of the best and tube them and then roll them.
I can believe that magnificent rolls were thus assembled and stashed.
I quit when college came along and sold mine all off.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that if the Mint didn't roll them it doesn't mean that experienced dealers didn't.
bob
Why would the “clever counterfeiter” bother with cents, when he could dupe collectors much more thoroughly with higher denominations?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I still do the same thing. I accumulate BU rolls, then when I get enough of one date/MM (20+) I go through them looking for varieties, and pull out the high grade coins as well as the culls. I keep the varieties and high grade rolls, and spend the culls. I have a guy who picks up all my mid-grade rolls, and the process starts again.
That said, the high grade rolls are never represented by a single die pair, but often many pairs since only very few coins from each roll qualify to be kept. And in doing this for literally thousands of rolls, I have yet to find an MS69 coin. Business strike coins, thrown by the press into a pile, dumped into a bag, then put into a rolling machine, have contact marks on them. The highest grade I've ever seen from a BU roll (OBW) is MS67+.
http://macrocoins.com
I don't know. Maybe you need to think like a criminal to understand criminals. And why do you think "he" stuck just to Cents? Omega went for the holy grail 1907HR and other Gold coins. Henning did Nickels. How much do you think was spent on that "roll" of 1919 Cents? Probably enough to justify the work I'd bet.
http://macrocoins.com
That's impressive. It should get the Full Beard (FB) designation.
I understand what you are trying to say, but in this case, I would leave it be. The cents shown are all 100% genuine with absolutely NO DOUBT of their genuine nature and condition. Im not sure you want to continue more on this direction. Counterfeiting of that quality was just not possible, and they have been known long before technology could make a counterfeit with the perfect planchet, perfect strike etc. Ever seen a Henning that looked like that for example??
Anyway, it is good to look for the problems, but must be done in context. I would let this go @rmpsrpms. Just my two cents!!
And here I thought the discussion would be about a Mercury dime...
Smitten with DBLCs.
Does that mean you own two of them?
Seriously, these coins really seem too good to be true. I do understand folks wanting it not to be the case, since it would imply counterfeiters have been debasing the upper echelons of the condition rarity market for some time, and at this point it would be very difficult to back out of all the shenanigans, if it were even possible. Certainly with an environment of "market acceptability" these coins will maintain the veil of authenticity. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone that I am right, just giving the facts and interpretation as I see them.
http://macrocoins.com
Yes indeed, and I am sorry for spinning this away from the original discussion. I actually thought it was interesting that the Dime and Cent were both from 1919, and both appeared to be counterfeits.
http://macrocoins.com
This thread would go nuclear if Blay was still around . . .
Funniest thread in a while.
@rmpsrpms , what experience do you have with counterfeit detection? Let’s say the cent were fake, what type of counterfeit would it be (how would the counterfeit dies be made, in other words)? There is only one possible answer to that question.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
It is an interesting looking dime, but something about it isn't quite right.
Collector, occasional seller
The coin is real. But that beard is clearly fake.
I think the odds favor your wanting them to be counterfeit and not the rest wanting them not to be.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
Nope
Actually the beard seem weird to me. Too much of a straight line up to the ear? And seems to have odd details. But then I'm no expert, and am more used to lower grade Lincoln Cents!
And just don't see the sharpness of details in the hair on the head, when compared to the beard. Something just doesn't seem to match.
I think we need to start going down the route @Rexford pointed out. If the 1919 cent is fake, how was it made and what are the tells it's fake?
Coin Photographer.
Actually, I doubt that roll sold for much of anything. A random BU roll of 1919 cents still doesn't bring a King's ransom.
And making crap up doesn't count as facts. Other than the statistical anomaly - aren't all top pops statistical anomalies? - can you point to one thing about that coin that appears counterfeit?
We'll wait... we've waited 2 days, what's another 20 years?
Well, for me, it is just what I mentioned... seems way too much fine detail in the beard.... when compared to the hair. But.... I have not seen the coin in person, and only going based on the photo shown. If I saw the photo on ebay, I would be wondering and suspicious; probably would not buy. Is it fake? beats me. But I have learned from years of experience.... that if something just doesn't seem right.... ....well we all use our own judgement.
You haven't given us ONE fact...
Look at any single 1919 cent in gem MS and you'll see the same thing.
Coin Photographer.
I own or or handled as a dealer NONE of those, however just at a “high level” of numismatics will tell you these are clearly correct and right coins. There is no conspiracy here. I am a dealer in pre-1793 American coinage, and without direct knowledge I can tell from image the coins are correct. I’m just meaning you are digging yourself a hole that is based on factually INCORRECT theories or thoughts. The high grade Lincoln’s originally talked about are true coins. This is off topic to the post, but again, I would suggest to you that anyone knowledgeable knows those are proper and correct coins. Reputation for you would be best to let that go
Since we're way off topic here anyway: the only Blay coins that I didn't like, not that I thought they were fakes, just that the backstory was iffy, were the 1958 doubled dies. The 1919 cent is stunning.
Collector, occasional seller
Unfortunately I don't know for sure without examining the coin. It's unfortunate that an analysis was never made. Are there examples of worn coins from this same die? How about lower-grade coins from the same die. Do the lower grade coins match the supercoins in all dimensional aspects?
I'm not worried about my reputation, just the truth. If I am wrong, it's great for the hobby, and wonderful that such incredibly beautiful coins have survived through the years. If I am right, no one will really care and those coins will continue to be "market acceptable" based on all the adamant feedback from my posts. The owners will go on thinking they have a "condition rarity" and not really care about me or these posts.
Right back at you. And reported for your personal attack.
I bet the buyer paid thousands for that roll. That may not be much to you, but it is to me.
Indeed it is.
http://macrocoins.com
Case closed. It’s a genuine coin.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Hahaha! Anyway, seems a good closing argument. I'd hope to hear no more about it.
http://macrocoins.com
Does that mean that 1) you think the highest quality coins in the roll were counterfeit and 2) the counterfeiter (or an accomplice) was the one who sold the roll to Stewart Blay?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Partial "yes", and probable "no".
For sure I believe the MS69 and any other high grade coins from the same die indeed are counterfeit.
But it's more likely that the "roll" passed through several hands prior to the final owner buying it. I'd expect a "clever counterfeiter" to cover his tracks pretty well.
It might be instructive for the owner of the roll prior to the final owner to come forward to tell where he bought it. For sure that would improve the quality of the narrative, either direction.
http://macrocoins.com
Still waiting for one actual fact.
PCGS says real. Stewart Blay says real. We've got a lot of facts on that side of the ledger.
If you ever come up with one fact in the other side, there's a discussion. Until then, this borders on libel.
So are you the owner, and are threatening me with libel since I believe your coin is a counterfeit? I'm doubting it will be very difficult to prove the coin is counterfeit, if I am ever allowed/forced to do so.
Edited to add: reported for threats
http://macrocoins.com
How is it possible to produce such a high quality counterfeit in 1919 if nobody in the last 50 years has even come close to manufacturing a counterfeit of this quality. Sorry to say this harshly but you are making a fool of yourself and wasting everyone’s time with your insane thinking
Nobody said the counterfeits were made in 1919. I am not sure when the "roll" was purchased, but I would assume it was less than 20 years ago. The coins could have been made any time before that.
Please try to stick with the facts and civil discussion. You're the third forum member I've had to report for personal attacks.
http://macrocoins.com
Should I report you for making delusional statements and derailing this thread. So you are implying that the purchaser of the 1919 that paid around $1,000,000 bought a counterfeit without any reasonable evidence or proof. Making false statements is that reportable? You have no FACTS TO STICK WITH LOL
“Insane thinking” isn’t less of a fact than the coin being a counterfeit. If you knew your stuff about authentication then you would have provided me with a proper answer to my earlier question. I think people are calling your thinking insane because it has no logical basis in reality.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
The coin is in a PCGS 3.1 holder, used from 1993-1998. Given we know the coin was resubmitted, let's say it was placed in the holder in 1995. That's 29 years ago it was graded.
I'd say it would be pretty hard to create a counterfeit like this over thirty years ago.
Coin Photographer.
You would be wrong.
Now I know what it's like to be a whistleblower.
http://macrocoins.com
I'd like to hear how I'd "be wrong".
Can you explain how the coin was counterfeited?
Coin Photographer.
Even today I would think impossible. And if it could be done the coin hobby is in huge trouble
Go for it. My belief is the coin is counterfeit.
Personal attacks are very different from speculation about a coin's provenance.
I won't be able to prove the coin is a counterfeit until I examine it. That's not likely to happen, so all I can do is give my opinion and hope others will listen and agree. Some have. Others have not, but have engaged in civil discussion. Folks who have attacked me for giving my opinion lack the civility required to be a forum member here, IMO.
http://macrocoins.com
You said to stick to the facts. I was pointing out that your claims are no more factual than the statements you are criticizing. You have presented no evidence that the coins are counterfeit, yet you are “sure” of it. How? If you need to see the coin in hand to prove it’s counterfeit, then how are you sure right now that it is? And please, indulge us students and explain how you would prove your claim once you had the coin in hand.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
What are your credentials to pass judgment on this 1919 penny over the judgement of PCGS and CAC. Why is your judgement worth anything to anyone
The coin just does not look right. Too perfect. Unlikely story.
If I had it in-hand, I'd compare it with other 1919 to check if there are any dimensional anomalies in the feature sizes or placements in XY and Z compared to BU and circulated coins from same year and mint. I'd also characterize the die through whatever markers it has to see if there are any circulated examples from that die. If the dimensions are correct, and there are circulated examples, then I'd conclude it is not counterfeit. If there are dimensional anomalies, and no circulated examples, then I'd have to conclude it is a counterfeit. How it was made is irrelevant.
I think you are significantly underestimating the criminal mind. And indeed, if I am correct, the hobby has been in huge trouble for decades.
It's true that my opinion does not have a lot of value since I have not done the full analysis. However, I suspect PCGS and CAC also did not do the full analysis. I know that PCGS has made mistakes and put counterfeit and altered coins in slabs. I'm not sure if CAC has made similar mistakes.
http://macrocoins.com