1959-D Wheat Cent

MrEurekaMrEureka Posts: 20,065 ✭✭✭
What will this coin bring?
Andy Lustig

Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic……………………...Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.

image
«1

Comments

  • 1tommy1tommy Posts: 2,510 ✭✭✭
    thats a cool one of a kind and a great story ................
    My Registry Set.......Varieties Are The Spice Of LIFE and so Are Those who teach us what to search For.
  • CoinosaurusCoinosaurus Posts: 8,675 ✭✭✭
    "It is important to note here that this coin will not be confiscated as the Treasury Department has returned the coin twice to the owner after reviewing the coin and returning it as genuine."

    That's nice to say, and somewhat reassuring, but would they indemnify the new owner to that effect? I doubt it.

    As for value I'd guess $100K. Neat coin.
  • ambro51ambro51 Posts: 13,038 ✭✭✭
    Thats a coin that could be a legend. Id never read such detailed examination records before and it seems to be genuine, at least, according to the US Goverment.

    so....they say 40-50K? Id buy at that price...yes I would. If it goes into a PCGS or NGC holder the value goes up 5X instantly.

    No doubt there is a old man living in Colorado who is keeping a BIG secret.
  • Aegis3Aegis3 Posts: 2,753 ✭✭✭
    Either $74,750 or fails to meet reserve.
    --

    Ed. S.

    (EJS)
  • $103,500
  • bolivarshagnastybolivarshagnasty Posts: 3,806 ✭✭✭✭
    Andy, Thanks, a great read. I'll guess 100k+ on the auction. Shag
  • Holy Chit

  • savoyspecialsavoyspecial Posts: 7,183 ✭✭✭
    Mark Hofmann took credit for making this mule (albeit while in custody)
  • MsMorrisineMsMorrisine Posts: 20,197 ✭✭✭
    could the Secure Plus computer system be helpful with identifying different dies for 59D and 58D in an effort to shed light on its legitimacy?
    Current maintainer of Stone's Master List of Favorite Websites // My BST transactions
  • CoinosaurusCoinosaurus Posts: 8,675 ✭✭✭
    I suspect if PCGS could match the dies they would have already made a big deal about it - it would have been awesome publicity for SecurePlus.
  • wondercoinwondercoin Posts: 15,033 ✭✭✭
    The last time the Goldbergs had this coin up for auction, if I recall they pulled it shortly before the auction. What was that all about again?

    Wondercoin
    Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
  • CaptHenwayCaptHenway Posts: 22,595 ✭✭✭
    FWIW, around 1975 or 1976 Coin World's Collectors Clearinghouse received a letter asking if we would like to see a 1959-D cent that had been authenticated by ANACS. I replied that we would.

    The coin arrived, accompanied by an ANACS certificate from the Washington, D.C. office. Future ANACS Authenticator Ed Fleischmann and I both examined the coin, and thought that the second 9 had been skillfully altered. I contacted ANACS Director Charles Hoskins about the coin, and he checked their records and verified that they had inded authenticated the coin.

    However, until I mentioned it, he was not familiar with the fact that a 1959 cent should have a Memorial reverse. He said that they received many common, ordinary coins for certification, and nobody there had realized that the coin was unusual. They just blew it through with a cursory glance and certified it. We returned the coin to the owner along with our opinion of it.

    I do not believe that the Goldberg coin (which I have seen in person) is the same coin as the one I saw in the 1970s, but because of the great gap between viewings I cannot be sure.

    TD
    Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.--Ben Franklin
  • WoodenJeffersonWoodenJefferson Posts: 5,886 ✭✭✭
    I read the same story about Hoffman claiming to have produced this mule in his basement, utilizing an explosion impact die process. He claimed to have made 16-D Merc Dimes the same way.

    True or not, it just lends to the mystery.
    Chat Board Lingo

    "Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
  • Having had operated machinery like the mint uses to make coins I can see where the error could have happened. Since the obverse and reverse dies are placed into the die sets separately, it is possible that a wheat cent reverse die were mistakenly mixed in with memorial dies and placed in the die set. Upon inspecting the quality of the newly installed dies the operator would have attempted to pick out the error coins. The coins are fed into a bin after being struck. Suppose the coin bin were half full. There is a chance one error was overlooked or too much trouble to look for any further. Although doubtful, it is possible that the coin error was just a mistake and an example overlooked and got out of the mint. This is just speculation on my part. I'm just saying it could be a legitimate mistake.

    Ron
    Collect for the love of the hobby, the beauty of the coins, and enjoy the ride.
  • CaptHenwayCaptHenway Posts: 22,595 ✭✭✭


    << <i>I read the same story about Hoffman claiming to have produced this mule in his basement, utilizing an explosion impact die process. He claimed to have made 16-D Merc Dimes the same way.

    True or not, it just lends to the mystery. >>



    I have read the book. I do not find it credible.
    TD
    Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.--Ben Franklin
  • WoodenJeffersonWoodenJefferson Posts: 5,886 ✭✭✭
    In response to Melvin289:

    Sure thing it can happen that way, but think about it happening in a "transitional " year where you have a complete reverse design change, the set-up man is bound to look at the die face during installation. The obverse & reverse dies are configured so they cannot be swapped, they just won't fit, also flats on the side of the die orient the dies to maintain the coin flip rotation.

    Then you have some test strikes...with close examination of the product about to be produced. Is it possible to overlook the reverse not being Memorial?

    If anything, this was a clandestine midnight mint creation, smuggled out of the Denver Mint, like untold 1,000's of other errors that find their way to the market place.

    Chat Board Lingo

    "Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen


  • << <i>FWIW, around 1975 or 1976 Coin World's Collectors Clearinghouse received a letter asking if we would like to see a 1959-D cent that had been authenticated by ANACS. I replied that we would.

    The coin arrived, accompanied by an ANACS certificate from the Washington, D.C. office. Future ANACS Authenticator Ed Fleischmann and I both examined the coin, and thought that the second 9 had been skillfully altered. I contacted ANACS Director Charles Hoskins about the coin, and he checked their records and verified that they had inded authenticated the coin.

    However, until I mentioned it, he was not familiar with the fact that a 1959 cent should have a Memorial reverse. He said that they received many common, ordinary coins for certification, and nobody there had realized that the coin was unusual. They just blew it through with a cursory glance and certified it. We returned the coin to the owner along with our opinion of it.

    I do not believe that the Goldberg coin (which I have seen in person) is the same coin as the one I saw in the 1970s, but because of the great gap between viewings I cannot be sure.

    TD >>




    Interesting, I had to look. In the linked photo I see that the second 9 is thinner than the first 9. But looking at the 59-Ds in the registry sets I see that they also have the same characteristics. With the United States Secret Service Office of Investigations Counterfeit Division's report this looks like it might be the real thing.
  • If I had the money I'd easily pay $100k (even if it turned out to be a fake).
    Me at the Springfield coin show:
    image
    50 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!


  • << <i>If anything, this was a clandestine midnight mint creation, smuggled out of the Denver Mint, like untold 1,000's of other errors that find their way to the market place. >>



    image
    Me at the Springfield coin show:
    image
    50 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
  • rickoricko Posts: 46,067 ✭✭✭✭✭
    One more thing to look for in my gallons of wheat cents - when I get the time. Cheers, RickO
  • PerryHallPerryHall Posts: 34,276 ✭✭✭✭


    << <i>One more thing to look for in my gallons of wheat cents - when I get the time. Cheers, RickO >>



    If you find one, don't forget to share it with us.image
  • lcoopielcoopie Posts: 8,131 ✭✭✭
    My understanding of electron microscopy
    both standard and scanning
    is that they alter the surface of
    the object scanned
    Maybe someOne can add on to this thought?
  • SteveSteve Posts: 3,308 ✭✭✭
    IMHO the coin has "value", BUT as I've said here before, until and unless PCGS or NGC grade this coin as genuine or give it a grade, I cannot accept this coin as a legitimate part of our coinage. To me it is like the so called matte proof 1917 cent, although this is a known and publicized example and the 1917 MPL has not physically "shown up" yet. I, too would love to see PCGS examine the coin again with their new equipment and render an updated accessment. Steveimage
  • AngryTurtleAngryTurtle Posts: 1,261 ✭✭✭


    << <i>IMHO the coin has "value", BUT as I've said here before, until and unless PCGS or NGC grade this coin as genuine or give it a grade, I cannot accept this coin as a legitimate part of our coinage. To me it is like the so called matte proof 1917 cent, although this is a known and publicized example and the 1917 MPL has not physically "shown up" yet. I, too would love to see PCGS examine the coin again with their new equipment and render an updated accessment. Steveimage >>



    So, you give more weight to PCGS saying it authentic than the US Government saying its authentic?
  • FredWeinbergFredWeinberg Posts: 2,923 ✭✭✭
    I for one do not believe it is genuine.

    The Secret Service agent who filed the report
    was a CURRENCY expert, not a coin expert.

    (His title is Counterfeit Specialist, but it's counterfeit
    Currency).

    The coin was 'found' or 'discovered' in a jar of cents
    in Northern California a few decades ago; I do not
    believe that such a coin, if genuine, would have made
    it's way into a jar of cents. I am very familiar with
    coins 'made on purpose' from ALL three U.S. Mints,
    and do not believe that this type of 'error' would be
    in circulation for up to 5-10-15-years, and simply end
    up in an accumulation of cents.

    Could it have been found in a jar and be genuine?

    Anything is possible, but considering the totality of the
    coin itself, and how andwhere it was found, and the
    strong opinions of numerousnumismatists, in my opinion,
    the coin is not genuine.

    I have had it in-hand and examined it closely; it does
    not have the right 'look' or visual 'smell' in my view.
    I've told PCGS that I would not certify it in their holder.

    It's never been authenticated by any known or recognized
    Authentication Service in the coin industry. The prior owner,
    I've been told, spent years trying to match up the die
    markers on the coin, finding another 59-D with a similar obv.,
    but with no luck.

    I'm sure this thread will be a long one, and another will be
    started after the auction, but I am very firm in my view that
    the coin is not a genuine Mule or a genuine product of the
    U.S. Mint.

    Fred Weinberg
    Collector &Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the "Error Coin Encyclopedia', Vols., III & IV.
    Authenticator for Major Mint Errors
    for PCGS. A 35+-Year PNG Member, and an ICTA Board Member.


  • << <i>

    << <i>IMHO the coin has "value", BUT as I've said here before, until and unless PCGS or NGC grade this coin as genuine or give it a grade, I cannot accept this coin as a legitimate part of our coinage. To me it is like the so called matte proof 1917 cent, although this is a known and publicized example and the 1917 MPL has not physically "shown up" yet. I, too would love to see PCGS examine the coin again with their new equipment and render an updated accessment. Steveimage >>



    So, you give more weight to PCGS saying it authentic than the US Government saying its authentic? >>



    I for one do, I doubt they can match the amount of numismatic experience that PCGS has. For Minting coins yes of course, die theory & archival knowledge and resources-- no.
  • LakesammmanLakesammman Posts: 14,436 ✭✭✭✭
    Great read and appreciate the opinions of the experts here - thanks for posting it, Andy.
    "My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).
    I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17)
    Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ
  • renomedphysrenomedphys Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭


    << <i>My understanding of electron microscopy
    both standard and scanning
    is that they alter the surface of
    the object scanned
    Maybe someOne can add on to this thought? >>


    That is not my understanding of the process, especially when imaging an object composed of conductive material.

    The object being conductive is important to the process, as the idea is that as soon as the object is close enough to the anode, electrons will jump onto the object. A measurement of current confirms this. The object is rasterized and a map of the surface can be created simply by compiling the points in three dimensions.
  • truthtellertruthteller Posts: 1,291 ✭✭
    The property is not guaranteed to be authentic, and is marketable as is, and can not be returned.


    Interesting disclaimer at the end of the writeup.





    TRUTH
  • Just the fact that the obverse can not be matched to any existing die for the 1959 D would lead me to believe the coin is not an authentic mint product.
    Currently have a bunch of different Anacs certificate type coins, if you have any and are willing to sell, please PM me.

    image
    Current Ebay auctions
  • illini420illini420 Posts: 10,609 ✭✭✭✭


    << <i>Just the fact that the obverse can not be matched to any existing die for the 1959 D would lead me to believe the coin is not an authentic mint product. >>



    who said it can't be??? it just hasn't been yet. The auction write up says there are over 1,000 dies for the obverse and probably a lot more than that for the reverse (since it's not certain it's even a '58-D reverse... couldn't it have been a '57-D or earlier????). It's like finding a needle in a haystack for sure, but it may be possible.


  • << <i>

    << <i>Just the fact that the obverse can not be matched to any existing die for the 1959 D would lead me to believe the coin is not an authentic mint product. >>



    who said it can't be??? it just hasn't been yet. The auction write up says there are over 1,000 dies for the obverse and probably a lot more than that for the reverse (since it's not certain it's even a '58-D reverse... couldn't it have been a '57-D or earlier????). It's like finding a needle in a haystack for sure, but it may be possible. >>



    The reverse would be difficult, because there is no way to know for certainty which reverse die would've been used. The obverse on the other hand is a different story, as it would've clearly had to have been one of the existing dies. I'm sure the search has been exaustive to find a match for that 1959 D obverse. I know if I found it in a jar of coins that I would not stop until I found the matching die, as we are potentially talking about 100'ds of thousands of dollars if the coin could be diffinitively proven to be a mint product.

    If someone told me that somewhere out there, there is a cat that speaks English, and their evidence was that not every single cat in the whole wide world has been tested for English speaking skills, I would be skeptical to say the least, and have no problem stating that there are no cats that speak English.
    Currently have a bunch of different Anacs certificate type coins, if you have any and are willing to sell, please PM me.

    image
    Current Ebay auctions
  • johnny9434johnny9434 Posts: 16,963 ✭✭✭
    the chin on lincoln kinda looks like jay leno's chin to me. ( i didnt do that much drinking this weekend either image )
  • CoinosaurusCoinosaurus Posts: 8,675 ✭✭✭
    If the 1870-S half dime can land in a junk box then why not this coin?
  • jdimmickjdimmick Posts: 7,815 ✭✭✭
    I saw one of these in hand back in the late 70's , it was of course raw, but looked legit. He was a US postal inspector that dealt in coins and purchased it in a collection. if I remember some collector here locally had offered him like 5k for it at the time, but I dont beleive he ever sold it.
  • cmerlo1cmerlo1 Posts: 6,018 ✭✭✭
    This is a great thread! I love a good mystery...
    Co-Founder, CNO ilikecoins.com. You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 7/2013- 1983 No-S Proof Set
  • dcarrdcarr Posts: 4,417 ✭✭✭
    It has the look of a die-struck counterfeit, which is what I think it is.
  • WoodenJeffersonWoodenJefferson Posts: 5,886 ✭✭✭


    << <i>It has the look of a die-struck counterfeit, which is what I think it is. >>



    Not everyone has a ex-US Denver Mint press in their basementimage
    Chat Board Lingo

    "Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
  • EagleEyeEagleEye Posts: 7,031 ✭✭✭
    More than likely, if another one showed up, you be able to prove it is counterfeit, rather than genuine.
    Rick Snow, Eagle Eye Rare Coins, Inc.Check out my new web site:
  • dcarrdcarr Posts: 4,417 ✭✭✭


    << <i>

    << <i>It has the look of a die-struck counterfeit, which is what I think it is. >>



    Not everyone has a ex-US Denver Mint press in their basementimage >>



    image

    PS:
    One other possible scenario is this:
    The supposed perpetrator (creator) of this coin claims to have done it using explosive-force techiques
    (presumably for making dies). However, if it were actually a case of explosive force bonding (which is
    a well-known techinique for bonding metal clad layers), then maybe the front half of a genuine 1959-D
    Memorial cent was mated to the back half of a Wheat cent. If done right, this might be hard to detect.
    And this could also account for the coin's flatness on the high points of Lincoln's profile.
  • machoponchomachoponcho Posts: 342 ✭✭
    $60K. My guess is strongly influenced on the previous auction result of $48,300. I really think it could go anywhere from $20K to $100K
    I have existed since the creation of this world and will exist until its end. Only my form will change. For these 80 human life years, I have the benefit of having a functioning body and consciousness. I will not waste this opportunity.
  • AnalystAnalyst Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭
    If any members of the PCGS message boards strongly believe that this item is genuine, please say so and provide at least one concrete reason. Either a private message or a public post would be very much welcome. Likewise, if someone could point to specific features of the item that indicates that it is forgery, please communicate. So far, I have read many vague conjectures. If solid arguments were presented, then I may wish to write about this item and quote experts. It is odd that there is so much speculation and so little apparent evidence. I admit that I have never seen it. Have many contributors to this thread actually examined it?

    New column on Rarities & Related Topics
    "In order to understand the scarce coins that you own or see, you must learn about coins that you cannot afford." -Me
  • dcarrdcarr Posts: 4,417 ✭✭✭
    The letters seem a little too rounded.
    As you treaverse across the field and come to a letter or other device,
    the transition from horizontal to vertical appears more rounded than normal.
    Lincoln's forelock (front hair curl above forehead) is mostly missing.
    The space between the "L" of "Liberty" and the rim is not well defined.
    "LI" of Liberty not as sharp as the other letters.
  • TomBTomB Posts: 13,937 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Is it truly a cent? I don't know. I do know, however, that the write up gives me the impression that they infer that matching up a known die with the coin might be quite easy with a little effort. If that were the case I would imagine that it would have been done already, especially since the piece has been owned a significant length of time and its value would explode if proven a genuine, legitimate US Mint product. This makes me believe the process is far tougher than they would like others to believe and that it might have already been undertaken with extreme vigor by the current owners, but without a match.
    Thomas Bush Numismatics & Numismatic Photography

    In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson

    image
  • leothelyonleothelyon Posts: 7,151 ✭✭✭
    So.....why can't they match up the obverse with other obverses for the year similar to the way they match up fingerprints?


    Leo
    The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!

    <a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.jeffersonnickels.citymax.com/collection.html">FSJeffersonNickels
  • CoinosaurusCoinosaurus Posts: 8,675 ✭✭✭
    It's like JFK or the Lindbergh baby. This is just one of those situations where nothing is conclusive and there is a decent amount of evidence on both sides.

    The fact that it hasn't been die matched yet is the most significant finding here. No doubt in my mind that great effort has been expended to do so.


  • << <i>So.....why can't they match up the obverse with other obverses for the year similar to the way they match up fingerprints? >>

    Sounds like it might not be all that easy...

    "Okay, let’s do some simple math. Walter Breen states in his Encyclopedia that die life for Lincoln cents produced during this period was around 700,000 coins per die (page 233). Mintage for 1958-D cents (it being reasonable to assume the reverse die would have been a 1958-D) was 800,953,000 divided by 700,000 coins per die equals approximately 1,145 dies. Now, let’s do the obverse die, 1959-D mintage was 1,279,760,000 divided by 700,000 equals 1,828 obverse dies. Well, while daunting, the task at hand is not insurmountable! Examining circulated coins will not work (I tried that), as the die lines quickly disappear after limited circulation. Thus, this endeavor will best be completed by purchasing bags and bags of 1958-D cents (about $5 per roll of 50 coins) and bags and even more bags of 1959-D cents (about $1 per roll) and quick examination of the coins will hopefully produce an exact match to the unique die lines seen as a signature on this coin."

    From here...

    Looking for two particular dies out of about 3,000? Now, suppose that one or the other of the dies (or both!) *didn't* strike the average amount of coins noted above. The job gets even harder.
  • $50K to $60K is my guess
  • CoinosaurusCoinosaurus Posts: 8,675 ✭✭✭
    More interesting question - what is it worth if they match the dies?
  • CaptHenwayCaptHenway Posts: 22,595 ✭✭✭


    << <i>If any members of the PCGS message boards strongly believe that this item is genuine, please say so and provide at least one concrete reason. Either a private message or a public post would be very much welcome. Likewise, if someone could point to specific features of the item that indicates that it is forgery, please communicate. So far, I have read many vague conjectures. If solid arguments were presented, then I may wish to write about this item and quote experts. It is odd that there is so much speculation and so little apparent evidence. I admit that I have never seen it. Have many contributors to this thread actually examined it?

    New column on Rarities & Related Topics >>



    I have examined this one and the one that surfaced in the mid-1970's. I may be the only person who has seen both.
    I did not like either one.
    TD
    Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.--Ben Franklin
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.