Post your controversial coins. Are there any other aside from the FS110?

fcloud

Let see other coins that have controversy?

I’ll start with the so called 1936/29-S Possible Overdate FS-110

PerryHall

I can't see it in your pic. Can we get a close up of the date area?

fcloud

Here is a closeup of a different coin.

keyman64

Trouble Maker.

fcloud

Greg,

You could post your coin...

DCW

Not able to post a pic, but my 1980 d/s Lincoln cent double mint mark comes to mind. Years ago, I paid $$$ for one in 64rb. It's been delisted in just about every reference guide; debunked by the very experts that sold it to me.


I've since been very careful in purchasing coins that required imagination.

bolivarshagnasty

As mentioned in another thread, this one is a CherryPickers variety. Was not listed on CONECA's website. Many debunked it. Last summer, James Wiles attributed it and it is now officially listed on the CONECA website. This is the plate coin for the 34 DDO 4. See Variety Vista,(CPG Varieties) for the Wiles explanation of how this happened.

breakdown

One that comes to mind is the 1914/3 Buffalo nickel (sorry, I don't have an image of one). The horizontal bar of the "3" is quite faint in most examples and there has been an ongoing debate as to whether it should be included as a major Buffalo variety. In fact, David Hall (I believe in one of his weekly coin updates) once discussed that he had his doubts about the variety and was going to consider doing something about it (I assume meaning whether PCGS would slab such varieties any more). Pretty interesting subject to a Buffalo collector -- I don't collect the varieties but I certainly am interested in them.

keyman64

The 1943/2-P Jefferson Nickel seems to have the exact 3 over 2 that the 1936-S FS-110 has. Is there any controversy with it?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Moldnut

chieftain1

I have a 1954 D/S Jeff listed in Cherrypicker as debatable....Sorry I don't have pics to show but there is a curved middle stroke of an S visible inside the D. And it has old ANACS paper certificate......Perhaps they will un-debunk this coin someday. Meanwhile , I 'll keep it until the experts come up with a reason what this could be other than an S.

crypto79

in my series there is the famous S/CC but what most people don't know is there is a 2nd S/CC die pair that is less obvious.

johnny9434

<< <i>


>>

yumm errr i mean ummmm

BUFFNIXX

Hows about this one!





(The unicorn of Lincoln head cents
Unique 1917 matte proof)

BUFFNIXX

As far as the 1914/3 being a legitimate variety, it certainly is legit given the number of different dies involved. But if one does not like it then you are certainly free to ignore it as many do. On the other hand some even collect the 1914/3-s and 1914/3-d which Bill Fivaz profiled in a 2001 front page story in Coin World. But, my feeling is it will be dropped. Refer to Ron Pope's book on the abraded die varieties which has an excellent section detailing all of different dies for the 1914/3

BUFFNIXX

As far as the 1914/3-S goes, take a look at this photo I took thru a microscope --



You can see the crossbar of the 4 atop the three as well as the bottom rounded protion of the three and also the protusion of the center of the three in the middle.

braddick

<< <i>Hows about this one!





(The unicorn of Lincoln head cents
Unique 1917 matte proof) >>



Struck on a post-1982 zinc planchet! That is cool.

LanceNewmanOCC

<< <i>

<< <i>Hows about this one!





(The unicorn of Lincoln head cents
Unique 1917 matte proof) >>



Struck on a post-1982 zinc planchet! That is cool. >>



what the heck, i fixed these images once, i'm not doing it AGAIN!
.

keyman64

<< <i>

<< <i>The 1943/2-P Jefferson Nickel seems to have the exact 3 over 2 that the 1936-S FS-110 has. Is there any controversy with it? >>



Can you show the the above for the less knowledgeable to see, and whom blessed it? >>



Go to this REG SET to see the 1943/2-P...it has the same 2 under the 3 type of thing...

garrynot

<< <i>Not able to post a pic, but my 1980 d/s Lincoln cent double mint mark comes to mind. Years ago, I paid $$$ for one in 64rb. It's been delisted in just about every reference guide; debunked by the very experts that sold it to me.


I've since been very careful in purchasing coins that required imagination. >>



Here is a stock photo of the 1980 D/S from LincolnCentResource.com. I have one of these too.

keyman64

Go to this REG SET to see the 1943/2-P...it has the same 2 under the 3 type of thing...

Why does this coin seem to be more accepted than the Merc FS-110...or are there just fewer discussions about it...no one is rocking the boat by bringing it up? They both have the same "2" under the "3" going on...just wondering what others think. Thanks!

crypto79

<< <i>Go to this REG SET to see the 1943/2-P...it has the same 2 under the 3 type of thing...

Why does this coin seem to be more accepted than the Merc FS-110...or are there just fewer discussions about it...no one is rocking the boat by bringing it up? They both have the same "2" under the "3" going on...just wondering what others think. Thanks! >>



Come on keyman, it's a silly question. The 1943/2 is a bolder overdate with more parts of the 2 apparent, 1942 comes right before 1943, there is evidence of the rest of the date being re-hubbed, it has had 50 year of discussion already and last but not least there is a logical explanation on its creation and that scenario has happened many times before on different coins.

With the FS-110 if one was to accept the lines that admittedly look like something one must dismiss other lines that don't all at the same time. Also knowing how the mint operated in 1943 would go a long way to making one realize that the old die theory is a long leap of faith. While I am a septic the supporters need to realize that to prove something you need something to back it up other than hopes and feelings. The fact remains that no overlays, micro photography with indisputable remnants, records of dies being kept almost a decade in storage in the 20th Cen or any type of proof exists and until it does the supporters will be out number the non-believers. Trying to correlate another similar coin such as the 1943 nickel does nothing to prove your coin.

Unknown

This content has been removed.