Coin Doctors, part 2.

beckes · April 30, 2011 5:17AM

This is a follow up to my thread.

Is this coin currently for sale,

1890-O Morgan

The same as the coin on the NGC verification photo?

NGC same coin

llafoe · April 30, 2011 5:31AM

I vote No.

beckes · April 30, 2011 5:32AM

Or this??

1890-S Morgan

Compared to NGC verification. LOL, what happened to the die crack on the reverse??

NGC same coin

DorkGirl · April 30, 2011 5:34AM

I think it is, but NGCs pics are hard to read, way too small and the color seems off.

llafoe · April 30, 2011 5:38AM

The second one is definitely No.

DorkGirl · April 30, 2011 5:42AM

Even after figuring out how to enlarge

NGCs pics, it is so hard to tell. Their pics are not the best. I like the seller's pics better. If NGC could do something similar, it would be way easier to compare.

beckes · April 30, 2011 5:43AM

It is getting scary out there. I could post these all day long.

By the way, 1879 Trade Dollar as well as many of the same doctored coins were also re-sold under this account.

YES, I have reported it, to the buyers, and NCG. (off and on since December by the way.) NGC did acknowledge the issue.

Problem, as previously mentioned, they are a ton of shills. This is bigger than we might want to admit.

llafoe · April 30, 2011 5:44AM

<< Even after figuring out how to enlarge

NGCs pics, it is so hard to tell. Their pics are not the best. I like the seller's pics better. If NGC could do something similar, it would be way easier to compare. >>

The rim damage on the obverse of the second set of coins is very telling.

beckes · April 30, 2011 5:47AM

<< Even after figuring out how to enlarge

NGCs pics, it is so hard to tell. Their pics are not the best. I like the seller's pics better. If NGC could do something similar, it would be way easier to compare. >>

Becky:

You can also supersize it by clicking the bottom right corner. I'll save you the trouble, said company has already acknowledged this by the way. (I have the email so please do not accuse me of being anti NGC, I am not.)

DorkGirl · April 30, 2011 5:58AM

OK, you need to tell me what is doctored. I don't get what you are seeing.

beckes · April 30, 2011 6:01AM

<< OK, you need to tell me what is doctored. I don't get what you are seeing. >>

I don't know what might be doctored.

If it doesn't walk, talk, or act like a DUCK! HAHAHAHA

DorkGirl · April 30, 2011 6:06AM

So then, who are you calling a coin doctor? The seller? And how on earth do you think they are doctoring the coins? Cracking out and doctoring, then reholdering themselves? Your accusations are very vague and confusing. If you can prove something, then prove it. I guess I just don't get what you are trying to say........

beckes · April 30, 2011 6:19AM

<< So then, who are you calling a coin doctor? The seller? And how on earth do you think they are doctoring the coins? Cracking out and doctoring, then reholdering themselves? Your accusations are very vague and confusing. If you can prove something, then prove it. I guess I just don't get what you are trying to say........ >>

Not sure how I could prove it any more than I did. Sorry???

derryb · April 30, 2011 6:49AM

first set not the same reverse. only one of the two reverses has a big scratch down the spread wing. Also, more breast feathers on the ebay reverse. Possible NGC posted wrong reverse pic.

DorkGirl · April 30, 2011 6:50AM

Man, I must be slow. What did you prove?

greghansen · April 30, 2011 6:51AM

The 1890-O appears not to be the same. There is zero breast feather detail on the reverse of sellers photos and a big monster hit on the right (as you look at the coin) wing. On the NGC images, the big wing hit is absent and the breast shows plenty of feather detail. Interesting. Going to look at the other coin now.

MikeInFL · April 30, 2011 6:53AM

<< 
Is this coin currently for sale, 1890-O Morgan

The same as the coin on the NGC verification photo? NGC same coin >>

No, it does not appear to be the same coin.

DoubleEagle59 · April 30, 2011 6:54AM

I agree that the 1890-O is a different coin.

MikeInFL · April 30, 2011 6:56AM

<< Or this??

1890-S Morgan

Compared to NGC verification. LOL, what happened to the die crack on the reverse??

NGC same coin >>

No, that does not appear to be the same coin either.

beckes · April 30, 2011 6:57AM

Everyone. NGC has admitted to this. Just trying to be nice to them. There are counterfeit coins in their holders being sold on EBay.

Is this the end of our hobby? Putting the same coin in the correct holder, but it is not the same coin?

I just don't know. It is something that certainly has my attention.

Cheers again!

PawPaul · April 30, 2011 6:58AM

i don't know ........,

but I do know my personal Doctor Nick , wouldn't even speak to me at the Central States Show ............

jhdfla · April 30, 2011 7:00AM

<< i don't know ........,

but I do know my personal Doctor Nick , wouldn't even speak to me at the Central States Show ............

>>

Awww 'cmon, who you tryin to buffalo there pardner?

MikeInFL · April 30, 2011 7:00AM

Beckes, Counterfeit slabs have been around for a while. I don't think it is the end of our hobby, but it is certainly something all collectors should be aware of and take measures to avoid. Thank you for posting these examples...Mike

greghansen · April 30, 2011 7:02AM

The 1890-S coin also is not same coin IMO. As pointed out by another member, the obverse rim dings on the auctioned coin are completely absent from the NGC site coin.

Regarding the poster asking what did this prove, I suppose nothing yet, but the OP is pointing out the possibility of switched coins in authentic slabs or counterfeiting slabs and putting lessor coins inside. Both are possibilities worth being aware of and looking out for. I will be interested to see if this leads to additional evidence or other possibilities. In the meantime...be careful.

This isn't really 'coin doctoring' per se. There is nothing to suggest the coins in the original slabs have been cracked out and tampered with and put back in the slabs. This is more of a potential counterfeit slab or tampered slab issue. Too early to throw rocks, but not too early to ask hard questions.

Does anybody know the EBAY seller?

Edited to add: I just reread the thread and now notice the OP's statement that this seller was also one of the resellers of the butt ugly tampered 1879 Trade Dollar on his other thread. That's another heavy piece of bad evidence against him.

DorkGirl · April 30, 2011 7:21AM

I couldn't figure out how the original coins were doctored then reslabbed in the old holder. Apparently they weren't.....that has been my question all along. If they are fake slabs with different coins, that's a whole different ball game.

I don't call that doctoring. It's way worse.

beckes · April 30, 2011 7:29AM

If you folks are really bored, take a look at all the coins offered or sold. Compare them against NGC site. Then move on.

Go to HA and search the others, searching recent dates first.

When you find a boatload of them, you will now know what I do.

Then you will ask............

Is my baby real?

I am wondering.

derryb · April 30, 2011 7:53AM

Reported to NGC and Secret Service for further investigation.

greghansen · April 30, 2011 7:55AM

Your last coin imaged is obviously from an earlier generation NGC slab. I see nothing about the coin to cause me to suspect it is not a genuine MS67 starred coin. Looks damn nice to me. Unless there is a problem with that coin that isn't apparent from the images, I wouldn't get too worked up on conspiracy theories thinking every coin in an NGC slab was suspect.

Step one is to see if the coin in the slab merits the grade on the slab. There isn't any financial motivation for a crook to put the coin in a correctly graded slab. So if the coin merits the assigned grade, chances are really, really good its not a tampered with or counterfeit slab. If the coin in the slab doesn't look like it should merit the grade, then you have reason to look closer. If you don't know what the coin in the slab SHOULD look like for the assigned grade, then the problem is not with the coin or the slab, it is with the collector.

beckes · April 30, 2011 8:02AM

<< Reported to NGC and Secret Service for further investigation.

>>

LOL. I do like this one. Might sell it though, just in case!

llafoe · April 30, 2011 8:05AM

<< Then you will ask............

Is my baby real? >>

All the slabs in my children's collection come directly from PCGS... I HOPE they're real!

kaz · April 30, 2011 9:36AM

This is some really scary stuff. The fake slabs are getting very, very good and will only get better. I imagine that careful study of the slab, insert or gasket would reveal subtle differences with the real thing- but those might be deliberate, so the slab forger and confederates aren't fooled at some point by their own creation.

beckes · April 30, 2011 9:48AM

<< This is some really scary stuff. The fake slabs are getting very, very good and will only get better. I imagine that careful study of the slab, insert or gasket would reveal subtle differences with the real thing- but those might be deliberate, so the slab forger and confederates aren't fooled at some point by their own creation. >>

YES!

pontiacinf · April 30, 2011 10:27AM

not cool

Monstarcoins · April 30, 2011 10:31AM

<< i don't know ........,

but I do know my personal Doctor Nick , wouldn't even speak to me at the Central States Show ............

>>

Thats funny!Thats where I got my nickel and didnt know about him until after. Thats why when you asked where I got it I just said another dealer.

Gandyjai · April 30, 2011 11:46AM

In the 1890-S "Fake" slab ~vs~ the "real deal". Here is my observation.

1. The coins don't match. To me they obviously took the same serial number of an MS65 coin and made a matching "fake" slab and insert and put in an MS63 (maybe real maybe not) to try and "duplicate the "original slabbed version.

2. Obviously, they got the serial number right.

3. They got the bar code right. Rest of the NGC label looks OK too, except......

4. This is ~Key~....they got the font wrong for the number 8 in the date 1890! Check out the top loop of the 8 in the "original and compare it to the "fake"

The original has the bottom and upper loop almost identical in size while the "fake" slab has a MUCH smaller upper loop.

I know I'll be checking out the upper loops of the 8's in any NGC holdered coin I might buy in the near future!

Going by my "Upper 8 Loop Theory"....I would say that MS67* is genuine Morgan in a genuine NGC holder.

Happy Hunting!
Brian

I Love

DIVA and Error Ikes!

PawPaul · April 30, 2011 1:35PM

<< 

<< i don't know ........,

but I do know my personal Doctor Nick , wouldn't even speak to me at the Central States Show ............

>>

Awww 'cmon, who you tryin to buffalo there pardner?

>>

i think someone hooked him up to the various threads about him here on the boards ........... he prolly figures I stabbed him in the back once to often in my posts about him ........

And I'm not foolin' ............. he completely ignored me when I tried a couple times to start up a conversation

Coin Doctors, part 2.

Comments

Leave a Comment