Warning- this is counterfeit - beware!
Byers
Posts: 1,901 ✭✭✭✭✭
I submitted this gold die trial to NGC and PCGS. Both grading services determined that it is counterfeit!
Based on this new information, Saul Teichman of US Patterns updated the page on this die trial, adding that NGC and PCGS have determined that it is counterfeit. I showed it to Andy Lustig ( also part of US Patterns) in person who also determined that it was counterfeit.
I returned it to its owner. Subsequently, CAC declined to certify it genuine as well.
The owner then sent it to someone who “wanted to look at it”. This individual contacted a very famous, well known and highly respected numismatic firm in Beverly Hills. This firm called me a few days ago, with this die trial in hand, and gave me first shot once PCGS slabbed it. Obviously I updated this firm that I had already submitted it to both NGC and PCGS, both determining that it was counterfeit. This firm returned it to the individual.
I am not implying that the owner is misleading anyone, or has done anything unethical. He informed me that he fully explained that it is counterfeit to the individual that he sent it to. But it made its way to this firm who contacted me, believing that it was genuine.
Now this die trial is making the rounds on the internet. 3 other well known coin dealers have called me about this coin in the hopes of getting it certified and selling it to me. I obviously updated them as well.
I feel that I have an obligation to inform others. It is a very nice looking die trial until it is examined closely under magnification. Even if it is eventually sold as a counterfeit, or for its gold value, or as a conversation piece, or resold again, it is possible that it will continue to make the rounds and a few may think that it is genuine and try to purchase it, to send it for certification, not knowing that it is counterfeit.
Below are the 2 inserts from NGC and PCGS that were sent to me when the coin was returned to me, and the updated page from US Patterns as well.
BEWARE!
Comments
Wow! Thank you.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
contemporary?
I think it was likely produced in the 1950’s or 60’s, because I’ve seen other things of similar fabric that were made at that time.
That said, I’m uncomfortable seeing the coin condemned with such certainty in a public forum, because sometimes even the TPGs get this stuff wrong. So sure, post pictures and discuss the reasons why it was called fake, but leave the door open for debate.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Pedigree and documentation since 1962 but determined by NGC PCGS and CAC to be counterfeit.
Here are the images from NGC:
can it be proved to have come from a false die in some way?
PCGS determined that a false die was used:
Andy- the owner posted in the Virtual Coin Show on FaceBook group, that NGC. PCGS and CACG determined that this die trial was of “questionable authenticity”. Obviously this was not correct. So I posted the NGC and PCGS tags.
NGC : not genuine
PCGS: false dies / counterfeit
“questionable authenticity’” merits further debate.
This was not the case here.
Misrepresenting the opinions of a TPG is a no-no, but it does not make the coin fake.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Do we have better images of the die trial?
Coin Photography
It fooled some experts 50 and 60 years ago. Today the standard is TPG and NGC, PCGS and CAC are not going to certify it as genuine since it is struck from a counterfeit die.
It is a very interesting counterfeit and definitely has a great story behind it!
0 for 3 is a high bar to overcome.
Anything is possible and TPG services have made mistakes before, but 3/3???
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
And the blow up:
Thank you. It does appear to be a very high quality counterfeit.
Coin Photography
It is a high quality counterfeit.
It fooled everyone 50-60 years ago, and almost fooled a few of us recently!
But under high magnification…
(Look at the blow up image)
I'm aware. This is why I said that it appeared to be counterfeit.
Coin Photography
Looks closer to genuine than it does counterfeit.
That is scary.
I was fooled until I used high magnification. It is scary.
Agree. A quality high-resolution pic would be helpful in this discussion.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Transfer die from an original coin? Curious if it has been matched to any original coins or known counterfeits. Can't imagine they made such a good die and never struck any counterfeits outside of this die trial.
I was thinking the same thing; that was a lot of work for a “one and done “. With that ability, they could have made an equally good obverse die or dies, and struck multiple “Proofs”.
Didn't you sell this as a genuine coin back in the 1980's?
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
Thanks for the original post here, Mike. I saw this pop up again on social media. I'm not the expert on these in terms of die markers and details, but overall it doesn't make sense - to me at least - that a huge chunk of gold would have been used to test a die.
Board member: CONECA and TAMS
Instagram: @minterrors
Consultant for Mint Error News
ANA Summer Seminar instructor:
If it had been determined to be authentic and certified, it stood alone in a class by itself. There are no other gold die trials like this one ( oversized planchet, uniface) struck in GOLD, listed in Judd/ US Patterns or known to the numismatic community. They are normally struck in lead, white metal, copper etc…
Yes, and here is the rest of the story on this die trial!
In the early 1980’s I would split coin show tables with NCI (National Coin investments). The 2 partners were Paul Nuggett and Larry Demerer. Both are world class numismatists. We did millions of dollars of business back and forth.
I purchased and then split with them a Complete DOUBLE Set of 1915-S Panama-Pacific Exposition Commemorative Coins still in the original frames ( ten coins). It had the original boxes, a vial of sand from the Panama Canal and other documentation. The coins were in perfect condition. A 7 figure item today!
I also sold them a gold Indian Head Cent struck on a $2.5 planchet, certified by ANACS. Our deals were in the early 80’s before PCGS and NGC.
In 1984 at a coin show, Paul showed me this gold die trial. We walked over to David Akers who was also set up at the show. He showed us his $2 1/2 reference book which mentioned this die trial (shown below). We all believed that it was genuine. I purchased it for $5k and showed it to several other experts. Everyone loved it.
I reached out to both Paul and Larry a few months ago about this die trial. Neither of them remembered it.
Upon returning to Newport Beach, Ca (where my office was located at that time) I sold it to another dealer who placed it in a very substantial collection that he was building for a client.
The coin ‘disappeared’ for 40 years. It reappeared in a Florida estate and was purchased by a part time coin dealer. It was sold as gold scrap.
It was eventually sent to me to submit to PCGS and NGC, which I did. It was determined to be counterfeit. I returned it to the dealer.
A few months later ( last week) I received the phone call from the Beverly Hills coin firm, and here we are…
I always wonder how on "one-offs" they can be determined false/counterfeit when it seems the possibilities for a genuine MINT PRODUCED die are nearly endless. How do we know that the die was not some creation of a mint employee or engraver that potentially could be a trial or experiment for virtually any purpose that was not employed immediately; rather, what if the die was left on a back shelf somewhere and then later hauled out and used by somebody within or without the mint to strike this piece up.
One suggestion is to back up from the designation of "not genuine, false dies, counterfeit" similar in some way to what had been proposed: "questionable authenticity" or "die does not match known reverse dies".
I don't have an interest in this piece other than an open-minded discussion. I would hesitate to condemn on basis of die rust or uneven denticles, etc. I suppose although not exactly the same issue that one thinks of Paquet....
Well, just Love coins, period.
Think of the time and energy it took for someone to create this "coin"
Why would someone do so (other than for nefarious reasons)?
Have you seen some of the other 19th century efforts like needlepoint or micro-mosaics? No TV, no internet, no social media = would have been extreme boredom in our time. Also, IMHO that is not good grounds for excluding the possibility of a genuine mint produced/related coin.
Well, just Love coins, period.
Isn't this taking skepticism too far? You have THREE separate expert opinions.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Four.
After reviewing the photos, I agree with PCGS, NGC, and CAC.
In my 50 years of being a professional numismatist specializing in mint errors and die trials, I have handled many die trials and test pieces.
When I received this die trial to submit to the grading services, my mind explored the exact senarios that you present, of how this possibly was struck in the U.S. Mint.
And initially I believed it to be genuine. Just like when I handled it way back in 1984.
But under strong magnification the rust, die polishing, irregular denticles and wavy planchet led me to agree with the assessment from ALL three grading services!
I am not at liberty to discuss here the exact comments made to me by one of the grading finalizers, but maybe he
will chime in and explain why. Or another finalizer from the other 2 grading services.
I do agree that more details should be given to the submitter of any coin designated counterfeit.
Definitely a great story surrounding this ‘die trial’.
Make that 5, and I saw it in hand. But we can all make mistakes, so don’t take our opinions as fact. Just probably not a good idea to bet against us, especially based only on pictures. 😉
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Exactly Andy. I showed it to you raw, and you carefully examined it.
So no RED sticker, eh?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
All kidding aside:
To truly break it down, there were multiple experts who viewed and examined this item from each Service.
PCGS and NGC and CAC would best be represented as not, "three separate expert opinions" yet rather as up to a dozen or so expert opinions.
I can't imagine anyone one of those experts thoroughly examining this and not agreeing it is a counterfeit, thus going against the consensus.
You were supposed to keep that a secret.
I recommend a smaller sticker design. Also, in the future, don't put them on the coins. Ok?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Red- if you add up the experts who have seen it raw:
NGC
PCGS
CACG
Myself
Andy
5 other experts that I showed it to raw at the Long Beach coin show
The Beverly Hills coin firm that called me
( who agreed after examing it)
3 other experts at the PCGS show
Almost every expert who examined it thought that it was counterfeit. A few were not sure.
Excellent thread Mike & a great read - thanks for posting!
Ken
“The thrill of the hunt never gets old”
PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
Copperindian
Copperindian II
Indy Eagles
Gold Rush
Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
Copperindian
Nickelodeon
Early Walkers
Successful transactions: redraider, winesteven, renomedphys, splitaces, oreville, ajaan, Cent1225, onlyroosies, justindan, blitzdude, DesertMoon, johnnyb, Heubschgold, SunshineRareCoins, ParadimeCoins, ndeagles, Southern_Knights, pcgsregistrycollector
Hi Ken!
Definitely a very interesting story starting in 1962!
Without naming names, how many experts thought it was genuine even after examining it and also hearing (firsthand?) what other experts concluded?
Did jmlanzaf hit his 40,000th post here???
Since this was a joint effort by many experts to try and determine if it was counterfeit or not, thoughts were shared, it wasn’t a secret coin deal or a hush-hush covert operation.
Excluding the 3 grading services, and only basing this number on experts I showed it to personally at several different times/ locations, the tally was:
8 NOT genuine
2 probably not genuine
1 LIKELY genuine
Safe to assume the one "LIKELY genuine" isn't the current owner. . .?
This is a most interesting thread. Thanks to the contributors.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
ALL of us, or most of us?
Wonder if Fred Weinberg was in the examination mix?
In this case, “contributors” who made positive contributions, so most.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Correct. The owner had seen it before he shipped it to me, so no reason to show him again. He is not an expert. He is not in the tally.
The expert who thought that it was “LIKELY genuine” is world class. He and I discussed it at length.
The 8 experts who said NOT genuine disagreed with his conclusion but understood why he reached it.
The 2 experts who said probably not genuine were not sure about the opinion from this world class expert.
And then when considering the 3 grading services…
This ‘die trial’ is not getting certified.