1959 LINCOLN WHEAT CENT MULE NOT SOLD
Steve
Posts: 3,312 ✭✭✭
Well, as I expected, the 1959D Lincoln mule never did go to auction at the Goldberg sale on September 23rd. The coin was pulled out with the statement that it would be put up again in May of 2003. In my opinion, the current owner of this piece will never sell it for anything close to what he paid for it (apparently $27K+) unless and until the major grading services (PCGS, NGC, ANACS, ICG) agree to certify the piece as a genuine coin. Certainly, the Coin World article this week didn't help with the intent to sell. I expect that the owner will persue the lawsuit route to recover his money.
My question is would you bid $30,000 for this (coin?) if you were a Lincoln cent collector and if you had the money? Steve
My question is would you bid $30,000 for this (coin?) if you were a Lincoln cent collector and if you had the money? Steve
0
Comments
and btw, the coin is bogus imho.
K S
But then again, a nice convertible would be great, too
Heck, I don’t have any use for 19th century tokens, like pieces with Abraham Lincoln on one side and an antiunion or pro Confederate message on the other. To me that stuff is just junk even if it is over 100 years old. I won’t pay $25 for the 1959-D Lincoln/wheat ears mule, even if it is genuine.
how many of the 1804 dollars were found in circulation.
If it's not worth $25 to you even if genuine, what would it be worth?
You complain to me about that fact that I don't like modern coins. You are partially right. I don't like modern coins AT HIGH PRICES. I do like and I collect modern coins at reasonable prices. I think that ANYTHING that gets most of its value from the slab that encases it is suspect. If you can only get $10 or even $50 for something that goes to $1,500 once its in a slab, I think you are flirting with disaster.
I said that I don't even like 19th century mules that had no purpose other that to sell to collectors. What else do I have to do to show that I am consistent in my position?
I see the big issue as the fact that the Secret Service did not declare the coin to be genuine - they said they had no evidence that it wasn't. Big difference.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
I'd much rather have the two headed Indian cent.
I'd pay a $100 if the coin were genuine right now. If I had the money to pay $30,000, I'd still not pay more than $100. The remaining $29,900 would go into some really nice Flying Eagle and IH cents (REAL COINS).
sincerely michael
please read billjones post a few above mine he put it in a way that i could never say! in my opinion he is absolutely right!
sincerely michael
Russ, NCNE
that clown in jail who said he made it. If he did theirs people in Utah willing to pay
as much as needed to procure it.
Go BIG or GO HOME. ©Bill
Since the Secret Service has twice had the coin in their possession and twice ruled that it is genuine, the odds of confiscation are pretty close to nil. Civil servants don't like egg on their face.
Russ, NCNE
Back in the 1850s the government confiscated 1804 dollars that made unofficially in “the cool of the evening” yet sent out letters of authenticity for coins made from the same set of dies because those pieces were made “in the light of day.” The government has also hassled some people about patterns and mint errors, but left the vast majority of other people alone.
These regulations are like archaic sex laws. You might be OK having the lady’s head closer to the ceiling than your own one night, but if the powers at be feel like bothering you, they can come rapping on your door. (That's no bull. There were and probalby still are laws in some states about how you were supposed to do "it.'
collecting counterfeits (which this coin IS) is a legitimate pursuit.
K S
HEY HEY HEY!!! Don't drag Utah into the fray! I'm quite proud of my state! OK, well, not really.
I don't read that as a ringing endorsement. "Can't prove it's a fake" is what I get out of that.
The top people who work with coins every day aren't convinced the coin is real. Not just one person, either - PCGS, ANAAB, Dave Lange, JP Martin, Fred Weinberg, Dave Camire - all declined to declare the coin genuine (not that they claimed it's a fake). As far as I know only Sol Taylor has come out and said he believes the coin is the real deal.
In my mind, having the Secret Service report to fall back on would make it much easier for someone to be comfortable declaring the coin to be authentic. Yet no one will. I have to side with the group of experts versus the couple of Secret Service guys. The coin's owners have threatened legal action against any expert who badmouths the coin, which only heightens my suspicions. You'd think if they believed the coin was legit, they'd be encouraging discussion and examination to help bolster their position.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
No collecting counterfeits is not a black or white issue. Usually if the counterfeits are collected for historical purposes, the government will ignore it. BUT like I wrote earlier, IF they decide to come down on you, they can.
That's a very selective quote you used. In the interest of edification, since most people won't read the entire article, let's look at some relevant material:
The results of Surrency's examination "revealed that the coin's obverse does not exhibit any indications of alterations to the date or surrounding field," according to the report. "Further, the edge and rim of the submitted coin was examined for evidence of seams or alterations that would suggest that the submitted coin was a composite of a 1959-D obverse with a separate Wheat reverse."
The report indicates the examination shows there is no evidence of alterations or seams. "The metal shows smooth transition from the field to the rim and then to the edge," according to the report. "An alteration at these magnifications would be evident by tool mark striations or seams with solder or glue."
Prominent die polish (raised striations in the field but absent in the raised devices) is evident on the obverse and reverse of the mule. Surrency notes that during the examination, the 1959-D mule was compared to one 1959 Lincoln cent and two 1959-D Lincoln cents that have similar die polish on the obverse, and "no significant differences in the appearance of the polish were observed."
Nondestructive testing revealed the 1959-D Lincoln, Wheat cent mule is consistent in mass, diameter and thickness with genuine 1958 and 1959 cents. Surface measurements reached through energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy determined the mule to be consistent in metallic composition with genuine 1958 and 1959 cents.
I would also point out that the standard methodology in counterfeit detection is precisely the "can't find any reason to believe it's a fake" approach.
I would further note that the Secret Service's examination was far more scientific and detailed than that of the outside experts. To quote David Hall, (again, from the above referenced article), "Our opinion is based on a visual examination. Our opinion was so strong that we felt more elaborate tests were unnecessary."
While I have no idea who is right, when comparing the degree of analysis done by the opposing parties it is clear that the Secret Service testing was more thorough and extensive than anybody else. Logic would dictate that they would be closer to the truth.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>oddly enought, the word SCAM has not been used once in this thread....
collecting counterfeits (which this coin IS) is a legitimate pursuit.
K S >>
wanted...1964 peace dollar..... must be ms 69...will pay up to 50.00
<< <i>if the counterfeits are collected for historical purposes, the government will ignore it...IF they decide to come down on you, they can >>
no question about it , but the likelihood seems remote. if it was a die-struck sacagawea counterfeit, i'd think you would be getting the dreaded knock on the door. but the 1804 dollar is just as illegitimate a coin.
not disagreeing w/ you, because you're right, it's not B&W. closer to RB, maybe....
K S
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Very few people collect moderns by die variety. There are a lot of dies
and very little interest. It is complicated by the dies being used longer
now days and the little difference which exists between most dies. Un-
til recently very few people collected most of these at all. Also this coin
not uncirculated which tremendously complicates identifying the exact
die which struck it.
The whole matter of matching dies, or at least trying to, is discussed in the Goldberg catalog description of the coin. I have the feeling, though, that you could match the obverse and reverse dies to circulated coins and that would still not prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the coin was legitimate. At least it appears that way from the Coin World description of how the forger claims to have created it.
I saw the coin at the ANA - fairly nice and certainly a very interesting coin to look at. But then I sought out and asked the leading expert on Lincolns in the world (imho) what his opinion was. He said he was not permitted to discuss it by his company (which has refused to slab it). I made note of the fact that he wouldn't look me directly in the eye when he answered me.
Here is another way I thought about the coin. Would you rather have the 1959D mule or one of those off-color 1943-1944 Lincolns? No brainer. I'd rather have one of the latter, as long as it was certified.
Whatever - the 1959D is an entertaining story as long as you don't have money in it.
TRUTH