1914-D $2.50 Gold: Is it real or Memorex? (Six pix)

gyocomgd

I have two concerns only when I get one of these: Is it authentic, and has it been cleaned?

First, I've taken some pix of the key areas for counterfeit detection:
(1) The area between the 1 and 4 on "14" in the date. Counterfeits typically sport a depression between the 1 and 4, but the mark here does not seem to be located in the classic fashion for a counterfeit--it is too high, too close to the P in "BLP."
(2) The mint mark itself. I realize the "D" is not perfect, but is it fishy?
(3) The recessed area at the back of the Indian's neck. Counterfeit examples typically show evidence of tooling, and I wouldn't know tooling marks if you tooled my own neck.

Could someone knowledgeable on these take a look convey some thoughts?
Thanks so much,
Guy

lkrarecoins

Guy - i'm no expert on these, but FWIW, i was looking thru the PCGS Counterfeit detection guide just last night, and the mintmark looks tooled, similar to an example in the book.

Hopefully, I am wrong.

Nice pix, btw

Longacre

You should check the Whitman gold coin counterfeit book. I don't have mine with me, but if I remember, I can check tonight (or just wait for someone to respond who knows what they're talking about!).

JJM

I am certainally along for the ride on this thread !!!!

I won a 1910 - 2 -1/2 at the coin clubs holiday party...
.....

and have no experiance grading them......this is the only Indian gold I have

JJM

I know your question was more towards counterfiets, and the mintmark certainly looks tooled....

MrEureka

100% authentic. Nice photos, BTW.

DeusExMachina

This is my guess--it is ex-jewelry and cleaned. I am not sure why one would add a "D" mint mark the 1914 because the 1914-P is the semi-key date in the series. Unless it was practice for a 1911, I don't see why any counterfeiter would add a "D" to this coin.

I think the D looks tooled b/c the coin might have been in a jewelry holder which caused that strange line right through the middle. Just my uneducated guess.

ChOsEnOnE

I have to ask how did you get such clear closeup pics?

gyocomgd

I'll try to help us along a bit more. Here is a passage and couple of photos from the book, "Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection," edited by travers and writeen by Danreuther. I don't feel this section was written as clearly, and dealt with as completely, as it might have been. I left having more questions than when I started--one sign of a less-than-stellar presentation.

gyocomgd

<< <i>This is my guess--it is ex-jewelry and cleaned. I am not sure why one would add a "D" mint mark the 1914 because the 1914-P is the semi-key date in the series. Unless it was practice for a 1911, I don't see why any counterfeiter would add a "D" to this coin.

I think the D looks tooled b/c the coin might have been in a jewelry holder which caused that strange line right through the middle. Just my uneducated guess. >>



I can buy the cleaning; the coin has hairlines, although (a) they don't seem to run in one direction and (b) I've seen certified coins with worse hairlining. But the jewelery thing I am much less sure about. For one thing, jewelry pieces seem to have been polished/whizzed, and this coin doesn't have that look at all. Second, the line near the rim, which courses through the D, are not unusual on these. Finally, jewelry pieces are rarely AU; they've been handled more extensively than that.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm merely bouncing these back at you to provoke more discussion. I am certain you know more about these than I do, and I appreciate your contributing your thoughts.
Guy

mr1931S

Why would anyone try to put a "D" on this date where none existed before? If legitimate "D" once existed, assuming the piece is authentic, whoever worked on it did very poor work. Are those globs of excess metal that I'm seeing on the surfaces? The piece could easily be a cast counterfeit, is my opinion. Indeed, those are nice images.

gyocomgd

<< <i>I have to ask how did you get such clear closeup pics? >>



Aimed the camera through the loupe, then jostled it all until it came into focus. Very scientific, eh?
Good thing I only had one cup of coffee today. And forgive the dirty thumbnail--I raked up 15 bags of leaves today.

PerryHall

Every date in this series is heavily counterfeited. The counterfeits shown in all the reference books are only the tip of the iceberg. For every counterfeit shown in these references, the are dozens of counterfeits that aren't shown. So, just because a coin isn't listed in one of the reference books, one can't conclude that it's authentic. Most of the counterfeits in the series are extremely well exected and require the use of a good magnifier under good lighting so I would hesitate to authenticate this coin from a pic. That being said, I don't see anything that would indicate that this coin is a counterfeit. The mint mark looks normal for a circulated quarter eagle. The mintmark is the only design element that is raised above the field and and there is no raised rim on these coins to protect the mintmark; hence, it gets flattened out after only light circulation. The coin appears to be struck from a late die state die based on the deterioration just inside the rim. Hope this helps.

drwstr123

Beautiful coin and pics! Nice piece. Congrats.

DeusExMachina

<< <i>

<< <i>This is my guess--it is ex-jewelry and cleaned. I am not sure why one would add a "D" mint mark the 1914 because the 1914-P is the semi-key date in the series. Unless it was practice for a 1911, I don't see why any counterfeiter would add a "D" to this coin.

I think the D looks tooled b/c the coin might have been in a jewelry holder which caused that strange line right through the middle. Just my uneducated guess. >>



I can buy the cleaning; the coin has hairlines, although (a) they don't seem to run in one direction and (b) I've seen certified coins with worse hairlining. But the jewelery thing I am much less sure about. For one thing, jewelry pieces seem to have been polished/whizzed, and this coin doesn't have that look at all. Second, the line near the rim, which courses through the D, are not unusual on these. Finally, jewelry pieces are rarely AU; they've been handled more extensively than that.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm merely bouncing these back at you to provoke more discussion. I am certain you know more about these than I do, and I appreciate your contributing your thoughts.
Guy >>



No problem, there is nothing wrong with discussion, argument or disagreement.

I am certainly no expert but I think that the line through the D is post mint damage. I have noticed that these coins do have the line around the rim like you said. However, if this were a planchet characteristic, why would it spilt the D?

FredWeinberg

Andy's correct.....

The coin is genuine.......

MrEureka

The luster pattern, metal flow and die erosion are all exactly as seen on other authentic 14-D's. Even the color is right, although anything's possible in an image. The peripheral ridge that runs through the mintmark is an especially good sign, not a bad one. For those with any doubts, go take a look at some of the coins in the Heritage archives. You'll see the same things, over and over again.

gyocomgd

So what say--AU55?

MrEureka

From the picture, I'd guess it's a low end 63.

Bubblehead

Well, shoot... Reading this, prompted me to grab my AU58 out of the safe.

I have to say that they look identical. I'd also say it was legit, too.

Ummm, at 58, mine does look just a tad cleaner, tho...

PerryHall

The coin is not cleaned. There is no raised rim on these coins to protect the fields so they pick up light scratches after even brief circulation. Looks like an AU55 from your pic.

Nic

Real. Sell it to my 5 yr. old for Xmas. K

coinman420

<< <i>

<< <i>I have to ask how did you get such clear closeup pics? >>



Aimed the camera through the loupe, then jostled it all until it came into focus. Very scientific, eh?
Good thing I only had one cup of coffee today. And forgive the dirty thumbnail--I raked up 15 bags of leaves today.
>>




with macro or without macro?

gyocomgd

>>


with macro or without macro? >>



I trully don't know. The auto focus kicks in when I depress the shutter half way, I then monkey with it until the focus is as good as I can get it with my trembling hands.