@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
Yes, I believe the purchaser made a huge financial mistake buying this coin.
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
Yes, I believe the purchaser made a huge financial mistake buying this coin.
I think it is demeaning to the purchaser of this coin to say he made a million dollar mistake. You are spreading fake news
@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
Yes, I believe the purchaser made a huge financial mistake buying this coin.
I think it is demeaning to the purchaser of this coin to say he made a million dollar mistake. You are spreading fake news
I believe final sale price was just shy of half a million.
I have no idea why I am posting again to this thread, but it keeps popping back up at the top of the boards and I noticed that @rmpsrpms made mention of "lower grade" coins from the same die pair. I did a quick search on CoinFacts (quick, as in less than five minutes and the third coin I looked at) and found what I believe is a die pair match for the MS69RD Lincoln cent that has been the subject of most of this discussion.
"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?"
The top coin is the MS69RD and the bottom coin is an MS68RD. The MS68RD has PCGS cert number 41865283-
I am certain enough they are the same die pair to go through the effort to make this post, but of course I could be wrong. Click on the links to get larger images or open the embedded images in new browsers to enlarge them.
@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.
That is not a concrete reason to call it inauthentic. Saying that you think it's fake because you think it doesn't "look right" is almost circular logic. That is not evidence. The background story, whether true or not, does not have bearing on whether the coin is counterfeit. I want specific physical characteristics as evidence. If you think it "doesn't look right," why doesn't it look right? And do not mention the surface condition, because coins that are significantly older have survived in comparable or even better state.
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.
Ok, so clearly you have no history with authentication. If the coin were counterfeit, then die matching to circulated examples would have no bearing on its authenticity - even if successful. The dimensions could also be accurate on a fake, and likely would be. How it was made is relevant, because there is only one way to make a fake like this - the same way the Omega counterfeit was made, mind you - and you do not know that method. If you don't know that method, then you don't know how to detect those fakes (as you have demonstrated above) and thus you do not have the ability to authenticate this piece. So your claim that it is fake relies on nothing other than "it doesn't look right," which really means nothing at all. Especially when you evidently wouldn't know what to look for on an actual fake of this caliber.
@TomB said:
I have no idea why I am posting again to this thread
...
I am certain enough they are the same die pair to go through the effort to make this post, but of course I could be wrong. Click on the links to get larger images or open the embedded images in new browsers to enlarge them.
I asked a while back that folks stop posting, but they just keep coming back.
By "lower grade" I meant something more like a MS63BN. The MS68, based on that email shown earlier, was probably from the same "roll". What is needed are coins that are "independent" and showing evidence of bag marks and such from actual distribution, and preferably natural brown or red-brown toning from decades of storage. High grade circulated examples with natural surfaces would also be useful.
Again, I'd hope this thread is done, at least from the perspective of the 1919 Cent. I seem to have made a few enemies and would prefer not to make more.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
Unfortunately, I’d expect we’ll soon hear an argument that MS68 is not low enough quality and those coins are also counterfeit.
Yes, they are probably from the same "roll" as the MS69, right?
@Rexford said:
Ok, so clearly you have no history with authentication. If the coin were counterfeit, then die matching to circulated examples would have no bearing on its authenticity - even if successful. The dimensions could also be accurate on a fake, and likely would be. How it was made is relevant, because there is only one way to make a fake like this - the same way the Omega counterfeit was made, mind you - and you do not know that method. If you don't know that method, then you don't know how to detect those fakes (as you have demonstrated above) and thus you do not have the ability to authenticate this piece. So your claim that it is fake relies on nothing other than "it doesn't look right," which really means nothing at all. Especially when you evidently wouldn't know what to look for on an actual fake of this caliber.
I'm not sure what you are getting at, but physical inspection and measurement is the only way to determine authenticity. The two criteria I mentioned cover both the coin itself as well as whether it is from a unique die with only a few superb BU examples. Failing either of these tests is evidence of fakery.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
@rmpsrpms said:
OK, again can we stop going on about the 1919 Cent?
I am certain you have heard/read this phrase before...the bell cannot be unrung. Just because you might be wanting this conversation to end doesn't mean others might or might not let it go. Heck, this thread started out about a dubious 1919 Merc and careened into the current conversation about a certified 1919 Lincoln. I doubt anyone saw that coming.
If you are done with this conversation then just exit it. I know in the past I have been in discussions where I have just exited when it became clear my time was worth more doing other things. Please note I am not attempting to fight or debate you, but merely offering advice.
@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.
I'm curious, are you a professional authenticator? Do you collect Lincoln's? I'm a long time collector and NOTHING on that coin looks "off." BTW, my authentication seminar instructors' used that word "off" but they knew what they were talking about and then went on to explain exactly what was "off." Too good-to-be-true was one thing I was told should raise a red flag and call for a close examination. The 1919 cent falls into that category; yet the color, luster, surface, design, and carbon spot + the numismatists who have seen it or authenticated it shout out it is genuine so it looks like you are odd man/woman out.
Do you care to tell us what exactly is "off" about the coin? I'll be waiting for what tomorrow may bring.
@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.
A dealer I work for opened a roll of 1930 Buffalo nickels that had been in the family unopened sine then. They were in a blue wrapper with a bank name. Every coin had blazing luster but some of them were not all struck up making them look AU. That's when I learned how to tell if an uncirculated coin had a week strike by its luster.
@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.
Lighting can make the details of the beard stand out on this TGTBT example.
@rmpsrpms wrote: "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."
One of my instructors at Summer Seminar told the class that when he worked at ANACS back in the 1970's, a half roll of flawless, gem 1942/1dimes was sent in. First impression was they had to be fakes. All were from the same die and try as he may to prove they were new counterfeits they turned out to be 100% genuine. Those coins were used to record all the diagnostics used today to authenticate them.
@rmpsrpms wrote: I'm not trying to convince you or anyone that I am right, just giving the facts and interpretation as I see them.
I guess I'm piling on but in truth you have not posted any "facts" except for TGTBT. That is a fact; however, it says nothing about authenticity. What else have you got????
Both PCGS and CAC graded it MS69, and the owner also owned the finest Lincoln collection assembled, including the 1958DDO and finest example of many but including the 1969-D DDO.
I've seen a number of coins from ancient Greece and Rome that are mint state after over 2000 years and look simply perfect and you have some paranoid theory about a fake 1919 Lincoln cent, now that is truly bizarre.
You have earned only my second highly coveted ignore.
edit: and poof, he disappeared.
I want to be the third you ignore. Pretty please. You see, If I were to make stupid statements that I could not back up with facts, the best thing for me to do would be to start reporting the more knowledgeable members who don't agree with me so the moderator would close the thread! Real Slick.
The obverse hubs used for Lincoln Cents of the late teens through 1921 have better and sharper beard details than other years (especially early-die-state Philadelphia coins).
@dcarr said:
The obverse hubs used for Lincoln Cents of the late teens through 1921 have better and sharper beard details than other years (especially early-die-state Philadelphia coins).
Which is likely why the PCGS population report shows clearly by what I expect would be a statistically significant margin that every year the Lincoln coins from Philadelphia from 1909 to 1921 and then starting again in 1923 have the highest number of top tier specimens.
Then add in the higher die quality and you get superior details. And no sloppy hand punched mint mark to consider.
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.
@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
@dcarr said:
The obverse hubs used for Lincoln Cents of the late teens through 1921 have better and sharper beard details than other years (especially early-die-state Philadelphia coins).
That seems like a FACT. There's no place for that in this thread.
Unfortunately, I’d expect we’ll soon hear an argument that MS68 is not low enough quality and those coins are also counterfeit.
Yes, they are probably from the same "roll" as the MS69, right?
@Rexford said:
Ok, so clearly you have no history with authentication. If the coin were counterfeit, then die matching to circulated examples would have no bearing on its authenticity - even if successful. The dimensions could also be accurate on a fake, and likely would be. How it was made is relevant, because there is only one way to make a fake like this - the same way the Omega counterfeit was made, mind you - and you do not know that method. If you don't know that method, then you don't know how to detect those fakes (as you have demonstrated above) and thus you do not have the ability to authenticate this piece. So your claim that it is fake relies on nothing other than "it doesn't look right," which really means nothing at all. Especially when you evidently wouldn't know what to look for on an actual fake of this caliber.
I'm not sure what you are getting at, but physical inspection and measurement is the only way to determine authenticity. The two criteria I mentioned cover both the coin itself as well as whether it is from a unique die with only a few superb BU examples. Failing either of these tests is evidence of fakery.
And yet you make the assertion with no physical inspection or measurement.
@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
A forum member here, Carr, has made some remarkable fantasy pieces.......impossible??
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
I know there is frustration within this thread, but I honestly don't believe anyone is trolling. A difference of opinions is what makes for discoveries.
A bumblebee isn't suppose to fly yet no one told the bumblebee and it's flying anyway.
Instead of being closed minded lets explore the possibility you/me are not the smartest people in this thread and perhaps there is discussion/evidence that will allow us to change our minds.
@braddick said:
I know there is frustration within this thread, but I honestly don't believe anyone is trolling. A difference of opinions is what makes for discoveries.
A bumblebee isn't suppose to fly yet no one told the bumblebee and it's flying anyway.
Instead of being closed minded lets explore the possibility you/me are not the smartest people in this thread and perhaps there is discussion/evidence that will allow us to change our minds.
In lieu of being able to physically examine the coin, I plan to do some photographic forensics using existing PCGS and other photos of 1919 Cents. I've already done some comparisons between the TV and the slabbed image shown earlier. They look so very different in terms of surface quality, color, and detail that I was wondering if they were the same coin. However, there are markers that prove they are the same.
I think it's best if I start a new thread to present whatever evidence I find.
If anyone is willing to help, I could use some links to representative 1919 Cents. Or just Cert numbers will do since I can look them up on PCGS Cert verification pages. Another option is if folks have links to registries that contain the following coins:
MS63-64RD
MS63-64BN or RB
MS66-67RB
MS67-68RD
AU50-58
I'd like to view as many as possible in these grade and color ranges as it's key to find coins from both the same and different dies for comparison, so if you have links or cert numbers for multiple coins that would be great. Please PM me with the links to keep this thread from growing until I start the new one.
Photo analysis is not really complete since I can't do relief height measurements, but it's all I have available to me.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
I'm not sure what you are getting at, but physical inspection and measurement is the only way to determine authenticity. The two criteria I mentioned cover both the coin itself as well as whether it is from a unique die with only a few superb BU examples. Failing either of these tests is evidence of fakery.
And yet you make the assertion with no physical inspection or measurement.
I have contacted one of my authentication instructors who was a former member here. He works for a TPGS and in his opinion Daniel Carr is 100% correct - the coin is whizzed.
@dcarr said:
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).
I'm not sure what you are getting at, but physical inspection and measurement is the only way to determine authenticity. The two criteria I mentioned cover both the coin itself as well as whether it is from a unique die with only a few superb BU examples. Failing either of these tests is evidence of fakery.
And yet you make the assertion with no physical inspection or measurement.
My opinion that the MS69 Cent may be a counterfeit was primarily based on the original coin image I showed, which I think was from an auction listing. That image showed the coin as too good to be true in my opinion, but the later TVs look much more authentic, and if I had seen them prior to this thread I would not have posted. I've compared the original image to the TV to be sure it's actually the same coin, and indeed it is based on several markers. Someone in a previous post said that I was more interested in the coin being counterfeit than others were in it not, but this is not the case. So based on the photo analysis, the coin did not fail the test, and I have to conclude it is likely not counterfeit.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
It is hard to follow this thread with opinions bouncing back and forth between a Mercury Dime and
a Lincoln Cent. This is a good example of why there should not be more than one coin per post.
Sorry, I had no intention of causing the largest discussion on the forum 🤔
... So if this Mercury Dime is a counterfeit which the general consensus is, can I ask why would they put in more Detail than required? I have found a Mercury Dime from 1916 which on details is really close. The 1916 is obviously circulated but look at the details in the hair and on the olive branch... But one can imagine when hot off the press the details would be similar...
@Jeremy72 said:
Sorry, I had no intention of causing the largest discussion on the forum 🤔
... So if this Mercury Dime is a counterfeit which the general consensus is, can I ask why would they put in more Detail than required? I have found a Mercury Dime from 1916 which on details is really close. The 1916 is obviously circulated but look at the details in the hair and on the olive branch... But one can imagine when hot off the press the details would be similar...
..
The 1916s are much better struck as a rule. They will almost always show more detail than other dates.
And I'm not sure the consensus is "fake". A lot of people suggest that it is genuine but messed with.
@Jeremy72 said:
Sorry, I had no intention of causing the largest discussion on the forum 🤔
It's my fault, not yours. I just had a side comment that the Cent was another 1919 coin that looked counterfeit to me, and the whole weight of the world fell on me.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
@Jeremy72 said:
Sorry, I had no intention of causing the largest discussion on the forum 🤔
It's my fault, not yours. I just had a side comment that the Cent was another 1919 coin that looked counterfeit to me, and the whole weight of the world fell on me.
I've also been lightly confused. I just want to make sure I understand.
You alleged that a very well known coin with immaculate provenance was counterfeit, provided no evidence other than "it looks too nice", and ignored every expert here. Then you actually looked at pictures of the coin and determined that you were wrong?
Do I have that right? If so, why in the world would you not look at pictures of the coin before losing every shred of credibility???
@lermish said:
Do I have that right? If so, why in the world would you not look at pictures of the coin before losing every shred of credibility???
I formed my opinion about the coin years ago when its auction pics were posted on the forum. Those pics make the coin look very fake and I've believed the coin to be a fake ever since. The TVs look so different that I was not sure it was even the same coin. Plus, the "roll" backstory is certainly not "immaculate", so taken all together it seemed reasonable to question the coin. But once I proved to myself the auction photo was of the same coin as the TV, I'm willing to accept it as legitimate.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
@lermish said:
Do I have that right? If so, why in the world would you not look at pictures of the coin before losing every shred of credibility???
I formed my opinion about the coin years ago when its auction pics were posted on the forum. Those pics make the coin look very fake and I've believed the coin to be a fake ever since. The TVs look so different that I was not sure it was even the same coin. Plus, the "roll" backstory is certainly not "immaculate", so taken all together it seemed reasonable to question the coin. But once I proved to myself the auction photo was of the same coin as the TV, I'm willing to accept it as legitimate.
I hate to respond off-topic again on this thread, but I think it’s VERY important to point out here, this is exactly the danger in posting a theory in print with no evidence or even something factually close to back it up. It causes confusion at best, and a lot of other things at worst. In colonials, we have people post wild theories all the time, no matter how many times we try to stop it, the fact is that it takes 10x the amount of time to untangle the truth from the speculation. This is not the case here, but everyone should be careful when presenting theories such as what was shared on the 1919 cent. Just my two cents!
Edited to add: this is not saying a discussion cannot happen, but there is a BIG difference between, “does anyone think this looks too good to be true” versus, “This coin is a counterfeit because it’s too good to be true”.
To go back to the original topic, I also agree with DCarr and others that the Mercury is wizzed and pictured at an angle to make it look like that.
New England Rarities...Dealer In Colonial Coinage and Americana
@braddick said:
I know there is frustration within this thread, but I honestly don't believe anyone is trolling. A difference of opinions is what makes for discoveries.
A bumblebee isn't suppose to fly yet no one told the bumblebee and it's flying anyway.
Instead of being closed minded lets explore the possibility you/me are not the smartest people in this thread and perhaps there is discussion/evidence that will allow us to change our minds.
I usually follow that same logic, that one should not be so smugly sure on one's taste to the point of denying a possibility of another taste. For example I don't care for modern art, but it clearly has meaning, it's there to be embraced, and not mocked. But that is different, to keep posting on a PCGS Forum that something is a fake without any facts when real facts have been presented is absurd.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
@braddick said:
I know there is frustration within this thread, but I honestly don't believe anyone is trolling. A difference of opinions is what makes for discoveries.
A bumblebee isn't suppose to fly yet no one told the bumblebee and it's flying anyway.
Instead of being closed minded lets explore the possibility you/me are not the smartest people in this thread and perhaps there is discussion/evidence that will allow us to change our minds.
I usually follow that same logic, that one should not be so smugly sure on one's taste to the point of denying a possibility of another taste. For example I don't care for modern art, but it clearly has meaning, it's there to be embraced, and not mocked. But that is different, to keep posting on a PCGS Forum that something is a fake without any facts when real facts have been precented is absurd.
Excellent point, and one that is well taken.
I was impressed too that the member returned to admit his failings and inconsistent logic.
Many would not.
When a coin is heavily wire-brushed, there is often a build-up of metal along the leading edges of devices, like wind blowing waves up onto the shore. I have highlighted some of these in magenta. This is particularly evident on the "D" of UNITED.
What can also happen is that there is sometimes a bounce or ghost wave that forms on the trailing edges of devices. I have highlighted a few of those areas in blue. However, it is also possible that those blue-highlighted areas are from a type of corrosion.
I suspect that that the coin may have had pervasive (but fairly shallow) corrosion and that is why it was cleaned and wire-brushed.
@braddick said:
I know there is frustration within this thread, but I honestly don't believe anyone is trolling. A difference of opinions is what makes for discoveries.
A bumblebee isn't suppose to fly yet no one told the bumblebee and it's flying anyway.
Instead of being closed minded lets explore the possibility you/me are not the smartest people in this thread and perhaps there is discussion/evidence that will allow us to change our minds.
We're waiting for ANY evidence...
Evidence works both ways. What do you have that says the coins are legit other than an opinion from a cgc. The counterfeit 1893-S Morgan dollars come to mind that a cgc can make some mistakes.
@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
At some grades, preferably at the higher ones, a coin deemed worthy of such a lofty grade.....well, personally I just wouldn't want nor accept a coin with a black carbon spot. And the top two coins have them! I guess carbon spots can turn up/develop after encapsulated What's done about that this since we can't just keep on pretending its a MS69 caliber coin, can we? Nor ignore that the carbon spots are not really there..... Unfortunately with copper...... Same thing with Jefferson nickels with poor weak strikes, we can't keep pretending these are great collector coins. Little has been done to correct that problem for years!
I have also found some similarities in the fields, believe it or not, between the two top photos! What's it for fingerprints in crime to get a match? 7 before they have a suspect......?
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
@braddick said:
I know there is frustration within this thread, but I honestly don't believe anyone is trolling. A difference of opinions is what makes for discoveries.
A bumblebee isn't suppose to fly yet no one told the bumblebee and it's flying anyway.
Instead of being closed minded lets explore the possibility you/me are not the smartest people in this thread and perhaps there is discussion/evidence that will allow us to change our minds.
We're waiting for ANY evidence...
Evidence works both ways. What do you have that says the coins are legit other than an opinion from a cgc. The counterfeit 1893-S Morgan dollars come to mind that a cgc can make some mistakes.
@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
At some grades, preferably at the higher ones, a coin deemed worthy of such a lofty grade.....well, personally I just wouldn't want nor accept a coin with a black carbon spot. And the top two coins have them! I guess carbon spots can turn up/develop after encapsulated What's done about that this since we can't just keep on pretending its a MS69 caliber coin, can we? Nor ignore that the carbon spots are not really there..... Unfortunately with copper...... Same thing with Jefferson nickels with poor weak strikes, we can't keep pretending these are great collector coins. Little has been done to correct that problem for years!
I have also found some similarities in the fields, believe it or not, between the two top photos! What's it for fingerprints in crime to get a match? 7 before they have a suspect......?
Leo
We have the opinion of every numismatist who has touched the coin including Blay who was arguably the #1 Lincoln cent guy. The coin matches other known examples. There's a massive amount of evidence of authenticity. Against that we have only the comment of someone that never saw the coin that it is "too nice" based on no diagnostics, physical observations or even in- hands inspection.
And, congratulations on backing the opinion of someone who has now retracted the opinion.
Oh, by the way, I think every coin in your collection is counterfeit. According to you, there's no way to prove me wrong because the opinion of every one who actually saw them doesn't count.
@braddick said:
I know there is frustration within this thread, but I honestly don't believe anyone is trolling. A difference of opinions is what makes for discoveries.
A bumblebee isn't suppose to fly yet no one told the bumblebee and it's flying anyway.
Instead of being closed minded lets explore the possibility you/me are not the smartest people in this thread and perhaps there is discussion/evidence that will allow us to change our minds.
We're waiting for ANY evidence...
Evidence works both ways. What do you have that says the coins are legit other than an opinion from a cgc. The counterfeit 1893-S Morgan dollars come to mind that a cgc can make some mistakes.
@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
At some grades, preferably at the higher ones, a coin deemed worthy of such a lofty grade.....well, personally I just wouldn't want nor accept a coin with a black carbon spot. And the top two coins have them! I guess carbon spots can turn up/develop after encapsulated What's done about that this since we can't just keep on pretending its a MS69 caliber coin, can we? Nor ignore that the carbon spots are not really there..... Unfortunately with copper...... Same thing with Jefferson nickels with poor weak strikes, we can't keep pretending these are great collector coins. Little has been done to correct that problem for years!
I have also found some similarities in the fields, believe it or not, between the two top photos! What's it for fingerprints in crime to get a match? 7 before they have a suspect......?
Leo
Well, I kind of think my point was heard with the post, but with that said, 200 years from now, do we expect every coin in plastic to be the same? Isn’t that the same as wondering in 5 years, or 10/15/20? The focus is wrong, coins are coins, plastic is plastic, at the end of the day, the numismatists carry on without worrying about this. Grading services are GREAT for the hobby, beyond that, it takes the people who write books, new discoveries, etc to keep the interest. But it’s not long lived IMO to discuss certain grading elements. Just enjoy the coins as the ones from our past did.
New England Rarities...Dealer In Colonial Coinage and Americana
@braddick said:
I know there is frustration within this thread, but I honestly don't believe anyone is trolling. A difference of opinions is what makes for discoveries.
A bumblebee isn't suppose to fly yet no one told the bumblebee and it's flying anyway.
Instead of being closed minded lets explore the possibility you/me are not the smartest people in this thread and perhaps there is discussion/evidence that will allow us to change our minds.
We're waiting for ANY evidence...
Evidence works both ways. What do you have that says the coins are legit other than an opinion from a cgc. The counterfeit 1893-S Morgan dollars come to mind that a cgc can make some mistakes.
@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
At some grades, preferably at the higher ones, a coin deemed worthy of such a lofty grade.....well, personally I just wouldn't want nor accept a coin with a black carbon spot. And the top two coins have them! I guess carbon spots can turn up/develop after encapsulated What's done about that this since we can't just keep on pretending its a MS69 caliber coin, can we? Nor ignore that the carbon spots are not really there..... Unfortunately with copper...... Same thing with Jefferson nickels with poor weak strikes, we can't keep pretending these are great collector coins. Little has been done to correct that problem for years!
I have also found some similarities in the fields, believe it or not, between the two top photos! What's it for fingerprints in crime to get a match? 7 before they have a suspect......?
Leo
Well, I kind of think my point was heard with the post, but with that said, 200 years from now, do we expect every coin in plastic to be the same? Isn’t that the same as wondering in 5 years, or 10/15/20? The focus is wrong, coins are coins, plastic is plastic, at the end of the day, the numismatists carry on without worrying about this. Grading services are GREAT for the hobby, beyond that, it takes the people who write books, new discoveries, etc to keep the interest. But it’s not long lived IMO to discuss certain grading elements. Just enjoy the coins as the ones from our past did.
I see no reason why one tiny carbon spot would preclude a 68 or 69. It should preclude a 70 but none of those coins are 70.
@Jeremy72 said:
Sorry, I had no intention of causing the largest discussion on the forum 🤔
... So if this Mercury Dime is a counterfeit which the general consensus is, can I ask why would they put in more Detail than required? I have found a Mercury Dime from 1916 which on details is really close. The 1916 is obviously circulated but look at the details in the hair and on the olive branch... But one can imagine when hot off the press the details would be similar...
..
A 1916 dime is different from a 1919. Hopefully I'm right about that and someone can confirm my opinion. Show and tell and discussions drive these forums. Just as some coins raise a Wow factor and some threads last multiple pages others fall flat. You started a good discussion. It did wander off but that is the nature of unregulated group discussions. One minute we write about dimes and the next we are discussing Lincoln cents.
If you are here for awhile, you'll learn that some members' opinions are better than others. I ONLY look at the number of stars plus the number of agreements a member has as a start. Anyway, some very knowledgeable members have posted here. Daniel Carr makes his own numismatic souvenirs so he knows a lot about coins. Your coin looked fake to me but after I read his opinion (whizzed) days ago, I reached out to a long time professional authenticator named Insider on Coin Talk forum to comment on your dime. He said the coin is obviously whizzed and that the reverse image gives it away. I posted that last night and that's good enough for me.
Comments
Yes, I believe the purchaser made a huge financial mistake buying this coin.
http://macrocoins.com
I think it is demeaning to the purchaser of this coin to say he made a million dollar mistake. You are spreading fake news
I believe final sale price was just shy of half a million.
Coin Photographer.
No, I am simply expressing my opinion.
http://macrocoins.com
Now that's a bargain! What would it be worth if I am right?
http://macrocoins.com
I have no idea why I am posting again to this thread, but it keeps popping back up at the top of the boards and I noticed that @rmpsrpms made mention of "lower grade" coins from the same die pair. I did a quick search on CoinFacts (quick, as in less than five minutes and the third coin I looked at) and found what I believe is a die pair match for the MS69RD Lincoln cent that has been the subject of most of this discussion.
@rmpsrpms quote-
"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?"
The top coin is the MS69RD and the bottom coin is an MS68RD. The MS68RD has PCGS cert number 41865283-
https://d1htnxwo4o0jhw.cloudfront.net/pcgs/cert/09762887/extra_large/228404826.jpg
https://d1htnxwo4o0jhw.cloudfront.net/pcgs/cert/41865283/extra_large/209993097.jpg
I am certain enough they are the same die pair to go through the effort to make this post, but of course I could be wrong. Click on the links to get larger images or open the embedded images in new browsers to enlarge them.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
That is not a concrete reason to call it inauthentic. Saying that you think it's fake because you think it doesn't "look right" is almost circular logic. That is not evidence. The background story, whether true or not, does not have bearing on whether the coin is counterfeit. I want specific physical characteristics as evidence. If you think it "doesn't look right," why doesn't it look right? And do not mention the surface condition, because coins that are significantly older have survived in comparable or even better state.
Ok, so clearly you have no history with authentication. If the coin were counterfeit, then die matching to circulated examples would have no bearing on its authenticity - even if successful. The dimensions could also be accurate on a fake, and likely would be. How it was made is relevant, because there is only one way to make a fake like this - the same way the Omega counterfeit was made, mind you - and you do not know that method. If you don't know that method, then you don't know how to detect those fakes (as you have demonstrated above) and thus you do not have the ability to authenticate this piece. So your claim that it is fake relies on nothing other than "it doesn't look right," which really means nothing at all. Especially when you evidently wouldn't know what to look for on an actual fake of this caliber.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
@TomB
I noticed the same. Several MS68RD coins are die matches to the 69.
Unfortunately, I’d expect we’ll soon hear an argument that MS68 is not low enough quality and those coins are also counterfeit.
Coin Photographer.
Half a million dollars in CAC and PCGS buyback money.
Coin Photographer.
...
I asked a while back that folks stop posting, but they just keep coming back.
By "lower grade" I meant something more like a MS63BN. The MS68, based on that email shown earlier, was probably from the same "roll". What is needed are coins that are "independent" and showing evidence of bag marks and such from actual distribution, and preferably natural brown or red-brown toning from decades of storage. High grade circulated examples with natural surfaces would also be useful.
Again, I'd hope this thread is done, at least from the perspective of the 1919 Cent. I seem to have made a few enemies and would prefer not to make more.
http://macrocoins.com
Yes, they are probably from the same "roll" as the MS69, right?
I'm not sure what you are getting at, but physical inspection and measurement is the only way to determine authenticity. The two criteria I mentioned cover both the coin itself as well as whether it is from a unique die with only a few superb BU examples. Failing either of these tests is evidence of fakery.
http://macrocoins.com
OK, again can we stop going on about the 1919 Cent?
http://macrocoins.com
I am certain you have heard/read this phrase before...the bell cannot be unrung. Just because you might be wanting this conversation to end doesn't mean others might or might not let it go. Heck, this thread started out about a dubious 1919 Merc and careened into the current conversation about a certified 1919 Lincoln. I doubt anyone saw that coming.
If you are done with this conversation then just exit it. I know in the past I have been in discussions where I have just exited when it became clear my time was worth more doing other things. Please note I am not attempting to fight or debate you, but merely offering advice.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Don't the designs of coins change a little over the decades?
I'm curious, are you a professional authenticator? Do you collect Lincoln's? I'm a long time collector and NOTHING on that coin looks "off." BTW, my authentication seminar instructors' used that word "off" but they knew what they were talking about and then went on to explain exactly what was "off." Too good-to-be-true was one thing I was told should raise a red flag and call for a close examination. The 1919 cent falls into that category; yet the color, luster, surface, design, and carbon spot + the numismatists who have seen it or authenticated it shout out it is genuine so it looks like you are odd man/woman out.
Do you care to tell us what exactly is "off" about the coin? I'll be waiting for what tomorrow may bring.
A dealer I work for opened a roll of 1930 Buffalo nickels that had been in the family unopened sine then. They were in a blue wrapper with a bank name. Every coin had blazing luster but some of them were not all struck up making them look AU. That's when I learned how to tell if an uncirculated coin had a week strike by its luster.
Lighting can make the details of the beard stand out on this TGTBT example.
@rmpsrpms wrote: "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."
One of my instructors at Summer Seminar told the class that when he worked at ANACS back in the 1970's, a half roll of flawless, gem 1942/1dimes was sent in. First impression was they had to be fakes. All were from the same die and try as he may to prove they were new counterfeits they turned out to be 100% genuine. Those coins were used to record all the diagnostics used today to authenticate them.
@rmpsrpms wrote: I'm not trying to convince you or anyone that I am right, just giving the facts and interpretation as I see them.
I guess I'm piling on but in truth you have not posted any "facts" except for TGTBT. That is a fact; however, it says nothing about authenticity. What else have you got????
I want to be the third you ignore. Pretty please. You see, If I were to make stupid statements that I could not back up with facts, the best thing for me to do would be to start reporting the more knowledgeable members who don't agree with me so the moderator would close the thread! Real Slick.
The obverse hubs used for Lincoln Cents of the late teens through 1921 have better and sharper beard details than other years (especially early-die-state Philadelphia coins).
Which is likely why the PCGS population report shows clearly by what I expect would be a statistically significant margin that every year the Lincoln coins from Philadelphia from 1909 to 1921 and then starting again in 1923 have the highest number of top tier specimens.
Then add in the higher die quality and you get superior details. And no sloppy hand punched mint mark to consider.
Lmao. What threat? You are libeling PCGS, not me.
Careful, he'll report you.
That seems like a FACT. There's no place for that in this thread.
And yet you make the assertion with no physical inspection or measurement.
A forum member here, Carr, has made some remarkable fantasy pieces.......impossible??
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
I know there is frustration within this thread, but I honestly don't believe anyone is trolling. A difference of opinions is what makes for discoveries.
A bumblebee isn't suppose to fly yet no one told the bumblebee and it's flying anyway.
Instead of being closed minded lets explore the possibility you/me are not the smartest people in this thread and perhaps there is discussion/evidence that will allow us to change our minds.
peacockcoins
We're waiting for ANY evidence...
In lieu of being able to physically examine the coin, I plan to do some photographic forensics using existing PCGS and other photos of 1919 Cents. I've already done some comparisons between the TV and the slabbed image shown earlier. They look so very different in terms of surface quality, color, and detail that I was wondering if they were the same coin. However, there are markers that prove they are the same.
I think it's best if I start a new thread to present whatever evidence I find.
If anyone is willing to help, I could use some links to representative 1919 Cents. Or just Cert numbers will do since I can look them up on PCGS Cert verification pages. Another option is if folks have links to registries that contain the following coins:
MS63-64RD
MS63-64BN or RB
MS66-67RB
MS67-68RD
AU50-58
I'd like to view as many as possible in these grade and color ranges as it's key to find coins from both the same and different dies for comparison, so if you have links or cert numbers for multiple coins that would be great. Please PM me with the links to keep this thread from growing until I start the new one.
Photo analysis is not really complete since I can't do relief height measurements, but it's all I have available to me.
http://macrocoins.com
CAC is never wrong.
there is a lot of stupid talk here
This is the oddest looking 1919 Lincoln Cent I have ever seen. Wait, what were we talking about again?
Philippians 4:4-7
@rmpsrpms said:
I'm not sure what you are getting at, but physical inspection and measurement is the only way to determine authenticity. The two criteria I mentioned cover both the coin itself as well as whether it is from a unique die with only a few superb BU examples. Failing either of these tests is evidence of fakery.
I have contacted one of my authentication instructors who was a former member here. He works for a TPGS and in his opinion Daniel Carr is 100% correct - the coin is whizzed.
My opinion that the MS69 Cent may be a counterfeit was primarily based on the original coin image I showed, which I think was from an auction listing. That image showed the coin as too good to be true in my opinion, but the later TVs look much more authentic, and if I had seen them prior to this thread I would not have posted. I've compared the original image to the TV to be sure it's actually the same coin, and indeed it is based on several markers. Someone in a previous post said that I was more interested in the coin being counterfeit than others were in it not, but this is not the case. So based on the photo analysis, the coin did not fail the test, and I have to conclude it is likely not counterfeit.
http://macrocoins.com
My two cents (dimes)? worth. Look at the lips, and where the jaw meets the neck. Fake imo.
It is hard to follow this thread with opinions bouncing back and forth between a Mercury Dime and
a Lincoln Cent. This is a good example of why there should not be more than one coin per post.
Sorry, I had no intention of causing the largest discussion on the forum 🤔
... So if this Mercury Dime is a counterfeit which the general consensus is, can I ask why would they put in more Detail than required? I have found a Mercury Dime from 1916 which on details is really close. The 1916 is obviously circulated but look at the details in the hair and on the olive branch... But one can imagine when hot off the press the details would be similar...
..
The 1916s are much better struck as a rule. They will almost always show more detail than other dates.
And I'm not sure the consensus is "fake". A lot of people suggest that it is genuine but messed with.
It's my fault, not yours. I just had a side comment that the Cent was another 1919 coin that looked counterfeit to me, and the whole weight of the world fell on me.
http://macrocoins.com
I've also been lightly confused. I just want to make sure I understand.
You alleged that a very well known coin with immaculate provenance was counterfeit, provided no evidence other than "it looks too nice", and ignored every expert here. Then you actually looked at pictures of the coin and determined that you were wrong?
Do I have that right? If so, why in the world would you not look at pictures of the coin before losing every shred of credibility???
I formed my opinion about the coin years ago when its auction pics were posted on the forum. Those pics make the coin look very fake and I've believed the coin to be a fake ever since. The TVs look so different that I was not sure it was even the same coin. Plus, the "roll" backstory is certainly not "immaculate", so taken all together it seemed reasonable to question the coin. But once I proved to myself the auction photo was of the same coin as the TV, I'm willing to accept it as legitimate.
http://macrocoins.com
I don't like the rim from 3:00-5:00 and right above her jaw there is something off there.
Check out my iPhone app SlabReader!
I hate to respond off-topic again on this thread, but I think it’s VERY important to point out here, this is exactly the danger in posting a theory in print with no evidence or even something factually close to back it up. It causes confusion at best, and a lot of other things at worst. In colonials, we have people post wild theories all the time, no matter how many times we try to stop it, the fact is that it takes 10x the amount of time to untangle the truth from the speculation. This is not the case here, but everyone should be careful when presenting theories such as what was shared on the 1919 cent. Just my two cents!
Edited to add: this is not saying a discussion cannot happen, but there is a BIG difference between, “does anyone think this looks too good to be true” versus, “This coin is a counterfeit because it’s too good to be true”.
To go back to the original topic, I also agree with DCarr and others that the Mercury is wizzed and pictured at an angle to make it look like that.
I usually follow that same logic, that one should not be so smugly sure on one's taste to the point of denying a possibility of another taste. For example I don't care for modern art, but it clearly has meaning, it's there to be embraced, and not mocked. But that is different, to keep posting on a PCGS Forum that something is a fake without any facts when real facts have been presented is absurd.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Excellent point, and one that is well taken.
I was impressed too that the member returned to admit his failings and inconsistent logic.
Many would not.
peacockcoins
When a coin is heavily wire-brushed, there is often a build-up of metal along the leading edges of devices, like wind blowing waves up onto the shore. I have highlighted some of these in magenta. This is particularly evident on the "D" of UNITED.
What can also happen is that there is sometimes a bounce or ghost wave that forms on the trailing edges of devices. I have highlighted a few of those areas in blue. However, it is also possible that those blue-highlighted areas are from a type of corrosion.
I suspect that that the coin may have had pervasive (but fairly shallow) corrosion and that is why it was cleaned and wire-brushed.
@jmlanzaf said:
Evidence works both ways. What do you have that says the coins are legit other than an opinion from a cgc. The counterfeit 1893-S Morgan dollars come to mind that a cgc can make some mistakes.
At some grades, preferably at the higher ones, a coin deemed worthy of such a lofty grade.....well, personally I just wouldn't want nor accept a coin with a black carbon spot. And the top two coins have them! I guess carbon spots can turn up/develop after encapsulated What's done about that this since we can't just keep on pretending its a MS69 caliber coin, can we? Nor ignore that the carbon spots are not really there..... Unfortunately with copper...... Same thing with Jefferson nickels with poor weak strikes, we can't keep pretending these are great collector coins. Little has been done to correct that problem for years!
I have also found some similarities in the fields, believe it or not, between the two top photos! What's it for fingerprints in crime to get a match? 7 before they have a suspect......?
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
We have the opinion of every numismatist who has touched the coin including Blay who was arguably the #1 Lincoln cent guy. The coin matches other known examples. There's a massive amount of evidence of authenticity. Against that we have only the comment of someone that never saw the coin that it is "too nice" based on no diagnostics, physical observations or even in- hands inspection.
And, congratulations on backing the opinion of someone who has now retracted the opinion.
Oh, by the way, I think every coin in your collection is counterfeit. According to you, there's no way to prove me wrong because the opinion of every one who actually saw them doesn't count.
Well, I kind of think my point was heard with the post, but with that said, 200 years from now, do we expect every coin in plastic to be the same? Isn’t that the same as wondering in 5 years, or 10/15/20? The focus is wrong, coins are coins, plastic is plastic, at the end of the day, the numismatists carry on without worrying about this. Grading services are GREAT for the hobby, beyond that, it takes the people who write books, new discoveries, etc to keep the interest. But it’s not long lived IMO to discuss certain grading elements. Just enjoy the coins as the ones from our past did.
I see no reason why one tiny carbon spot would preclude a 68 or 69. It should preclude a 70 but none of those coins are 70.
A 1916 dime is different from a 1919. Hopefully I'm right about that and someone can confirm my opinion. Show and tell and discussions drive these forums. Just as some coins raise a Wow factor and some threads last multiple pages others fall flat. You started a good discussion. It did wander off but that is the nature of unregulated group discussions. One minute we write about dimes and the next we are discussing Lincoln cents.
If you are here for awhile, you'll learn that some members' opinions are better than others. I ONLY look at the number of stars plus the number of agreements a member has as a start. Anyway, some very knowledgeable members have posted here. Daniel Carr makes his own numismatic souvenirs so he knows a lot about coins. Your coin looked fake to me but after I read his opinion (whizzed) days ago, I reached out to a long time professional authenticator named Insider on Coin Talk forum to comment on your dime. He said the coin is obviously whizzed and that the reverse image gives it away. I posted that last night and that's good enough for me.