Counterfeit 1804 cent, DLRC kudos
lkeigwin
Posts: 16,892 ✭✭✭✭✭
This arrived yesterday. I learned from Conder that the reverse was from an 1803 S-260 die. Nice.
DLRC was very accommodating and quickly agreed to take it back, even though it had been cracked.
I know that sometimes folks here are divided about David Lawrence and their auctions, pictures, etc. But I figured they deserved a little good press for this one.
Lance.
DLRC was very accommodating and quickly agreed to take it back, even though it had been cracked.
I know that sometimes folks here are divided about David Lawrence and their auctions, pictures, etc. But I figured they deserved a little good press for this one.
Lance.
Coin Photography Services / Everyman Registry set / BHNC #213
0
Comments
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I'm not so sure the selling dealer would agree that overall this is good press.
roadrunner
<< <i>How is the coin counterfeit? >>
Here is a real reverse. Look at the ends of the wreath at 12k and note where the gap between them is, relative to the letters in STATES. There was only one die marriage for 1804.
Lance.
<< <i>I'm not so sure the selling dealer would concur that this is good press. >>
Slabbed no big deal, but taking it back after it was cracked out they deserve some praise
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm not so sure the selling dealer would concur that this is good press. >>
Slabbed no big deal, but taking it back after it was cracked out they deserve some praise
I don't disagree. But if I were in the seller's shoes, I would have just passed on the public kudos.
If the coin were bought raw, should it have made any difference if the buyer discovered it was ng right away?
Once cracked it was arguably still the responsibility of the selling dealer. Though if left slabbed the responsiblity would shift back to NGC.
Sometimes we all forget that the TPG is just an opinion. You still have to look at the coin, especially key dates.
roadrunner
John
EAC 6024
<< <i>1 point for DLRC! >>
...and a BIG -1 for NGC!!!
<< <i>possible dumb question... any chance this is a new die variety? >>
That is what I was thinking. If there is no evidence of altered date.... Hmmmm
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
<< <i>possible dumb question... any chance this is a new die variety?
>>
<< <i>
<< <i>possible dumb question... any chance this is a new die variety? >>
That is what I was thinking. If there is no evidence of altered date.... Hmmmm >>
Quick, cancel the refund!
<< <i>Wow, that was a great job. Can you see any evidence of chasing the 4? >>
Lance.
<< <i>NGC will make it right, especially with the documentation on their boards. KUDOS to DLRC and all involved, its the way grading insurance is supposed to work. ------BigE >>
Will they, since it's been cracked out?
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
The classic test for genuine 1804 cents is that the "0" in the date should line up with the "O" in "OF" when you flip the on its horizontal axis. That does not apply 100% of the time, but it's a start.
I think this one should be shown to an early large cent expert to make sure that it’s not a new variety. Chances are against it, but it would not hurt to check. The alteration is good enough to make that review mandatory.
It's certainly an interesting piece and I have a feeling it will be on my desk for 6 months, once it arrives until we can find out something on it.
President of David Lawrence Rare Coins www.davidlawrence.com
email: John@davidlawrence.com
2022 ANA Dealer of the Year, Past Chair of NCBA (formerly ICTA), PNG Treasurer, Instructor at Witter Coin University, former Instructor/YN Chaperone ANA Summer Seminar, Coin World Most Influential, Curator of the D.L. Hansen Collection
microscope, but the punch styles and die marriages are unknown.
So, not to beat a dead horse, but I assume that this is the S-260 obverse with an altered date, correct? All I can say is that it would have fooled me.
Tom
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
<< <i>NGC will make it right, especially with the documentation on their boards. KUDOS to DLRC and all involved, its the way grading insurance is supposed to work. ------BigE >>
Will they, since it's been cracked out? >>
Yes!---------------BigE
<< <i>NGC will make it right, especially with the documentation on their boards. KUDOS to DLRC and all involved, its the way grading insurance is supposed to work. ------BigE >>
NGC does not have to do anything because the coin was cracked. IMO had the coin been left in the holder of course however once cracked NGC should not do anything. If NGC got in the habbit of refunding money for coins that were cracked they would be out of buisness very very soon. I believe the OP and all parties involved but honestly images can be played with so NGC cannot base a refund on an image. Once cracked all bets are off.
<< <i>
<< <i>NGC will make it right, especially with the documentation on their boards. KUDOS to DLRC and all involved, its the way grading insurance is supposed to work. ------BigE >>
NGC does not have to do anything because the coin was cracked. IMO had the coin been left in the holder of course however once cracked NGC should not do anything. If NGC got in the habbit of refunding money for coins that were cracked they would be out of buisness very very soon. I believe the OP and all parties involved but honestly images can be played with so NGC cannot base a refund on an image. Once cracked all bets are off. >>
Ordinarily this would be correct, and the sensible position to take. But there are other factors to consider. E.g., A large, well respected dealer (DLRC) has detailed images of the coin in its original NGC holder; NGC keeps pictures of coins it grades too. It would not be very difficult to verify with certainty that this is the same coin.
Sure, NGC could put its foot down, recite policy, and refuse to do anything. But I don't see it happening. Those of us who run companies know that sometimes the right decision comes from good business instincts and common sense, not from the book. NGC has offered to reholder cracked out coins before, once for me, when the issue was clear and compelling. And I hope they show the same good sense and flexibility for DLRC in this case.
Lance.
<< <i>So, not to beat a dead horse, but I assume that this is the S-260 obverse with an altered date, correct? All I can say is that it would have fooled me. >>
All we've been told is that it's an S-260 reverse. The obverse hasn't been confirmed as being S-260 yet.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>NGC will make it right, especially with the documentation on their boards. KUDOS to DLRC and all involved, its the way grading insurance is supposed to work. ------BigE >>
NGC does not have to do anything because the coin was cracked. IMO had the coin been left in the holder of course however once cracked NGC should not do anything. If NGC got in the habbit of refunding money for coins that were cracked they would be out of buisness very very soon. I believe the OP and all parties involved but honestly images can be played with so NGC cannot base a refund on an image. Once cracked all bets are off. >>
Ordinarily this would be correct, and the sensible position to take. But there are other factors to consider. E.g., A large, well respected dealer (DLRC) has detailed images of the coin in its original NGC holder; NGC keeps pictures of coins it grades too. It would not be very difficult to verify with certainty that this is the same coin.
Sure, NGC could put its foot down, recite policy, and refuse to do anything. But I don't see it happening. Those of us who run companies know that sometimes the right decision comes from good business instincts and common sense, not from the book. NGC has offered to reholder cracked out coins before, once for me, when the issue was clear and compelling. And I hope they show the same good sense and flexibility for DLRC in this case.
Lance. >>
I agree with your post and understand that there are several factors. I also run a buisness and if it were my coin I would issue a refund and do what was needed to make the situation right. On the other hand I have had nothing but bad experiences with ngc and have little to no faith in them.
<< <i>
I agree with your post and understand that there are several factors. I also run a buisness and if it were my coin I would issue a refund and do what was needed to make the situation right. On the other hand I have had nothing but bad experiences with ngc and have little to no faith in them. >>
Have you ever considered that maybe it was not indicative of NGC's business but more a reflection on you and or the niche you deal in? If 99 out of 100 people say NGC is fair and able to be talked to, well..........
<< <i>
<< <i>So, not to beat a dead horse, but I assume that this is the S-260 obverse with an altered date, correct? All I can say is that it would have fooled me. >>
All we've been told is that it's an S-260 reverse. The obverse hasn't been confirmed as being S-260 yet. >>
I am on the road for a few days and can't look into this. It's a curious question, although I think the odds are very high that the obverse is from an S-260 marriage.
Any large cent collectors out there who can check the obverse picture in the OP to see if it matches an 1803 S-260?
Lance.
Many members on this forum that now it cannot fit in my signature. Please ask for entire list.
<< <i>
<< <i>
I agree with your post and understand that there are several factors. I also run a buisness and if it were my coin I would issue a refund and do what was needed to make the situation right. On the other hand I have had nothing but bad experiences with ngc and have little to no faith in them. >>
Have you ever considered that maybe it was not indicative of NGC's business but more a reflection on you and or the niche you deal in? If 99 out of 100 people say NGC is fair and able to be talked to, well.......... >>
A reflection on me? The niche I deal in ? You have no idea what type of coins I have sent to ngc so how could you make such a silly comment. You dont even have any idea what types of coins I send in for grading or crossover, or regrade. You dont even know the problems I have had with ngc. The more I think about your comment the more shocked I am, What an ignorant comment. 99 out of 100 people? did you just throw that out there for the heck of it? I can assure you that is not the case.
As for the 99% of dealers and collectors I know hold NGC in very high regard. While they may prefer PCGS and the increased liquidity they bring or disagree with NGC standards from time to time that is different then an assault on the company's professionalism or integrity. Once again that comment was in line with the classic "consider the source".
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>So, not to beat a dead horse, but I assume that this is the S-260 obverse with an altered date, correct? All I can say is that it would have fooled me. >>
All we've been told is that it's an S-260 reverse. The obverse hasn't been confirmed as being S-260 yet. >>
I am on the road for a few days and can't look into this. It's a curious question, although I think the odds are very high that the obverse is from an S-260 marriage.
Any large cent collectors out there who can check the obverse picture in the OP to see if it matches an 1803 S-260?
Lance. >>
The OP coin appears to be the 1803 S-260 obv die 11 & rev die P.
On this example the base of the I in LIBERTY is higher than the base of the L.
The right lower serif of the T is shorter than the left. The T extends past the forelock.
The 8 in an 1804 cent leans right with the left side of the 8 under both the hair
and the bust. In the 1803 S-260 the 8 is more upright and is further to the right
under the bust.
It would help to show a better image of the date & LIBERTY, as well as the orientation
of the zero to the O(F) upon your return if you could.
It seems the coin may warrant some further study. It's an interesting piece.
R.I.P. Bear
<< <i>My comment was more a commentary about disdain that a lot of tone heads have for the 3rd party graders and their reliance on them to legitimatize the coins in their specialized niche to prevent the assumption of AT and the synchronous devaluation of the assets void of the graders positive opinion. It wasn't as much a shot at you but I did say it and you are welcome and encouraged to interpret it as you wish.
As for the 99% of dealers and collectors I know hold NGC in very high regard. While they may prefer PCGS and the increased liquidity they bring or disagree with NGC standards from time to time that is different then an assault on the company's professionalism or integrity. Once again that comment was in line with the classic "consider the source". >>
Crypto,
Thank you for the response. My issues with NGC have nothing to do with toned coins. I personally do not submit toned coins to any grading service, I prefer to purchase them already graded as to avoid any issues and debates over AT vrs NT. I will submit 50's double mint sets from time to time but even that is rare for me. My personal issues with NGC are in regards to copper, there so called guarantee on color (RB-RD-BN) and what they deem to be original. In my personal opinion I find too many coper coins that I find not to be original housed in ngc holders. I have had several issues with ngc over copper coins with PVC damage and I find the action they take to be laughable at best. Anyway not to drag this out to far, thatnks again for the well written response.
<< <i>Is the obverse real? Why would someone fake the reverse? Why would someone cut an 1804 in half ? makes no sense to me. Id say new variety, needs to be checked. >>
I am confused by your questions.
The coin is an 1803 with an altered date.
Only one die set was used for 1804, S-266. This coin has an 1803 S-260 reverse. The obverse, ignoring the alteration, matches the S-260 (obverse 12).
Lance.
By the way, I studied the coin's date today carefully and I really couldn't see any signs of tooling but the wear on the coin was likely inflicted deliberately to hide such marks. If the coin does turn out to be a new, rare variety (a very long shot, unfortunately) DLRC will donate 100% of the proceeds we get to a charity of Mr. Keigwin's choosing.
Thanks again everyone for your valuable insight.
-John
<< <i>Thanks to this thread, I received an unsolicited call from NGC today asking me about this coin. They offered me full reimbursement at my cost on the coin. It was a pleasant conversation that took less then 2 minutes. The system works.
By the way, I studied the coin's date today carefully and I really couldn't see any signs of tooling but the wear on the coin was likely inflicted deliberately to hide such marks. If the coin does turn out to be a new, rare variety (a very long shot, unfortunately) DLRC will donate 100% of the proceeds we get to a charity of Mr. Keigwin's choosing.
Thanks again everyone for your valuable insight.
-John >>
Wonderful, John...thanks for passing that along. I'm impressed all around.
Something like this happens to you and it's a sinking feeling. But when the best and the brightest get together and do the right thing it restores your faith in human goodness.
If only our political process worked so well.
Lance.