Options
My first "Questionable Authenticity" submission - 1909-S Indian
ModCrewman
Posts: 4,027 ✭✭✭✭✭
I have for your consideration a 1909-S Indian that I just received back from our hosts today labeled "Questionable Authenticity". The coin came from my late father's collection and was one of a couple dozen Indians and Lincolns that he had actually purchased during his collecting days (most of which involved circulating coinage). The 2x2 was labeled as "Good" with a price of $63, which IMHO would be a good indication that he had owned it for MANY years prior to his death in 2009.
Before submitting the coin under last quarter's CC special I recognized that it wasn't a coin without issues, the color on the obverse is fairly presented in the photos below and is significantly different from the even milk chocolate color of the reverse. I don't dismiss the opinions of the PCGS experts, but it does seem unlikely to me that my Father's coin from 1970(ish) would have been a counterfeit. In fact it had never even occurred to me before submitting that "questionable authenticity" was a possibility.
So for the sake of education, I'd appreciate some input from the many copper experts here as to what specifically would indicate the "QA" verdict; and perhaps whether there is anything that screams "counterfeit" that I've missed. Are there die markers or other identifying characteristics that collectors should look for in purchasing a key date such as this?
Before submitting the coin under last quarter's CC special I recognized that it wasn't a coin without issues, the color on the obverse is fairly presented in the photos below and is significantly different from the even milk chocolate color of the reverse. I don't dismiss the opinions of the PCGS experts, but it does seem unlikely to me that my Father's coin from 1970(ish) would have been a counterfeit. In fact it had never even occurred to me before submitting that "questionable authenticity" was a possibility.
So for the sake of education, I'd appreciate some input from the many copper experts here as to what specifically would indicate the "QA" verdict; and perhaps whether there is anything that screams "counterfeit" that I've missed. Are there die markers or other identifying characteristics that collectors should look for in purchasing a key date such as this?
0
Comments
But . . . one thing . . . there were MANY who counterfeited in earlier eras. Just because the coin was in a collection for decades is absolutely NO guarantee of any authenticity at all. I feel your pain and sympathize, but watch what the pros here do . . . they will let you know.
Again . . . great pix for all to see.
Drunner
(edited for a typo -- gee, I hate that!)
<< <i>Hmmm. Drilled and embossed S? >>
I thought that too, from the pics. But, the rim problem is in the wrong area for that.
bob
edited: it sure does look drilled into under the first T in STATES.
bob
Looks ok to me.
I have gone thoroughly through the Bay Area Counterfeits in the ANA Vol. II Detection guide and your specimen does not line up with any of the diagnostics there. i.e. it is not a counterfeit according to that definition.
Drunner
The drilled and filled rim looks suspicious.
But that S looks right, I don't see how they could push it up and get it that good.
<< <i>Hmmm. Drilled and embossed S? >>
I agree. It doesn't look like it was attached by glue as there is no discoloration that I can see around the MM. More than likely the edge damage came from the drilling and "pushing up" of the S on the surface of the coin.
-Paul
Where are all the hits nicks and dings?
<< <i>The edge damage shown has nothing to do with the MM. It is at the 3:00 position on the coin (of the obverse), not the base (of the reverse). >>
Oh, I didn't even notice it wasn't in the right spot on the edge. Clearly the MM is in the wrong place, though. Do you think it's an added MM or do you think the whole coin is bogus?
-Paul
<< <i>Its an added MM, not a whole fake. The coin just looks lightly damaged, but normal. The MM looks fairly normal too, so the position diagnostic is very important to attributing it. It is not a microscopic diagnostic. >>
Cool, that's what I figured. I guess the counterfeit detection class that I took last summer at the ANA is working! I just need to learn the diagnostics for MM locations and similar die markers for the keys. I know you taught us some of those, Rick, such as the shallow N on the '77, and I'm sure the MM positions on the '09 S as well, I just forgot!
-Paul
Edited to clarify.
<< <i>Lets start looking at the mintmark notice that both the upper and lower serif’s look like trumpets. Thus the name trumpet serifs. Looking at the upper serif, let you eyes move down to the bottom of the serif . You will see that the bottom of the serif almost touches curve of the “S” mintmark. Also notice that both the top and bottom serif are parallel. >>
dam that must be difficult to detatch an S and reaffix it onto a coin. Im no good at small work at all but Ill be my Father could have done it.
Under 16x there is nothing at all about the MM that leads me to think it may have been added or embossed, the color and edges are very even and the shape is "accurate" by the comparison to the photo above. I do agree, as mentioned in the OP that the coin didn't "look right".
That being said obviously Rick's opinion and analysis carries more than a little weight.
<< <i>Why not send the coin to Rick and let him examine it? >>
I'd be more than happy to do so, if he's interested, he sounded as though he was pretty sure of his opinion. (Which I recognize he should be.)
<< <i>good find by the Graders.
dam that must be difficult to detatch an S and reaffix it onto a coin. Im no good at small work at all but Ill be my Father could have done it. >>
They usually cast brand new fake mintmarks. Notice the mintmark has sharp edges, not the wear of a G-VG coin.
<< <i>I think the mintmark might be added by electro-depositon. >>
Huh?
That's my MM on the left, not sure it's any bigger than it was in the original pictures, but just cropped a bit more.
Could you describe how the electro-depositon process would be done on a coin/cent to add a mintmark
without effecting the rest of the coin.
Thanks
Mark
(former Rick Snow student at the Summer Seminar)
Life member of ANA
WS
Edited to add: the hole in the side is where the electrode was attached.
<< <i>Rick,
Could you describe how the electro-depositon process would be done on a coin/cent to add a mintmark
without effecting the rest of the coin.
Thanks
Mark
(former Rick Snow student at the Summer Seminar) >>
Coat the coin with wax. Remove some wax in the shape of a proper mintmark. Electroplate the coin with copper/bronze. Remove the wax and then recolor the coin. It's actually more difficult to execute than it sounds.
Edited to add that I see Rick beat me to it.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>Rick,
Could you describe how the electro-depositon process would be done on a coin/cent to add a mintmark
without effecting the rest of the coin. >>
Yeah...that's what I meant with my "Huh?"
<< <i>By running a current from a copper source to the cent you can deposit copper on the coin. if you cover the area of the coin with wax except for the mintmark, you can deposit metal in the shape of the MM on the coin. Then the coin is retoned brown. They missed the obverse on the color a bit.
Edited to add: the hole in the side is where the electrode was attached. >>
Amazing to me...they were good at what they did for sure.
I want to offer a sincere THANK YOU
Of course, I jest in that comment, and certainly as a conversation/demonstration piece, it's a very interesting piece to have in my possession. Along with the obvious sentimental value of it having come from my Father's collection.
Rick, do you see many of these?
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
Teletrade auction
I am not sure what that means
Snow-1 Notice the die line to the left of the MM.
Snow-2 Notice the lump on the denticle under the MM.
<< <i>They usually cast brand new fake mintmarks. Notice the mintmark has sharp edges, not the wear of a G-VG coin. >>
That is what I noticed, too. It just wasn't as worn as the rest of the coin.
mbogoman
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/classic-issues-colonials-through-1964/zambezi-collection-trade-dollars/7345Asesabi Lutho
is that a Snow-2 or a No-Snow? or is the lighting such that I can not tell where the denticles are just below the MM ?
Bump. Need to read more into this.
Tag: electro-depositon
Edit: Nine year old thread.
I agree. It looks like a very good job of embossing the Mintmark. A hole is drilled in the edge, then a Mintmark is pressed into the coin. This was done a lot with key date Buffalo Nickels.
Examples could be seen in Lange's book. In this particular alteration, the area where the Mintmark was pushed in was not completely filled back in.
Evidence of tooling will show even if the area is filled in. This is the first 1909-S Indiana I've seen with this alteration.
Pete
BuffaloIronTail, did you read the entire thread??
this thread is further evidence as to why it is better to buy key date coins in PCGS/NGC holder there is just too much for a collector to know.
Al. I thought I got the gist of the thread, but me guesses I missed some stuff. UMM.....I DID miss some stuff.
Doesn't matter. What I posted is educational to someone.
Pete
Interesting. Thanks for blowing the dust off Hemi.
Smitten with DBLCs.
Is there a video on how to drill and press a mint mark? I am confused as to what is happening.