Spare us the "I'm a victim; I'm really a good guy" comments... If you really want to rise above the mudslinging, then please just stick to the TD issues.
Finally had a chance to look at the coin and am convinced that it is not genuine. There are a few tells but the most obvious one is the following: take a look at the bottom tip of the feathers (on the right as you look at it). Comparing it all other Trade dolllars a standard "defect" is always seen on the left inside of the tip. Looks like a little chip (shown by arrow on left in image below). Also if you look at the coin you presented, it has more detail in the feathers than I have have ever seen before above this area. No other Trade Dollars that I have ever seen shows the detail in feather structure that this coin has.
If you resubmit to PCGS, I would point out this area to highlight. Sorry.
That it made it into a holder maybe but nothing here is new. Fakes have trickled into holders since the onset of TPG be they micro o Morgan's or trades, gold or what ever. As to the quality of the fake, none of the specialists were convinced. The smart people point them out and they are taken off the market. A cycle that has and will happen many times before and again.
That it made it into a holder maybe but nothing here is new. Fakes have trickled into holders since the onset of TPG be they micro o Morgan's or trades, gold or what ever. As to the quality of the fake, none of the specialists were convinced. The smart people point them out and they are taken off the market. A cycle that has and will happen many times before and again. >>
I would consider PCGS to be a specialist and it passed by them twice.
That it made it into a holder maybe but nothing here is new. Fakes have trickled into holders since the onset of TPG be they micro o Morgan's or trades, gold or what ever. As to the quality of the fake, none of the specialists were convinced. The smart people point them out and they are taken off the market. A cycle that has and will happen many times before and again. >>
I would consider PCGS to be a specialist and it passed by them twice. >>
PCGS is a great generalist with specialists on staff who only get involved when called upon, not for every coin.
Yes he is. And he loves dogs too, so that makes it 2x
Btw, when is the next TD-thon?
Keoj - can you email me to let me know at which show you plan next to attend? My guess is it'll be one that I don't normally attend so I'll have to make plans in advance.
That it made it into a holder maybe but nothing here is new. Fakes have trickled into holders since the onset of TPG be they micro o Morgan's or trades, gold or what ever. As to the quality of the fake, none of the specialists were convinced. The smart people point them out and they are taken off the market. A cycle that has and will happen many times before and again. >>
I would consider PCGS to be a specialist and it passed by them twice. >>
PCGS is a great generalist with specialists on staff who only get involved when called upon, not for every coin. >>
Seriously, you can't blame PCGS for not thinking the coin is a fake -- because the diagnostics are extremely nuanced. Many folks know the diagnostics for an SVDB or the key date CC dimes because they are big money. But in this case, the stake is merely a bunch of TD geeks trying to determine if we have a new die marriage (and thus creating a hole in Crypto79's set!).
Finally had a chance to look at the coin and am convinced that it is not genuine. There are a few tells but the most obvious one is the following: take a look at the bottom tip of the feathers (on the right as you look at it). Comparing it all other Trade dolllars a standard "defect" is always seen on the left inside of the tip. Looks like a little chip (shown by arrow on left in image below). Also if you look at the coin you presented, it has more detail in the feathers than I have have ever seen before above this area. No other Trade Dollars that I have ever seen shows the detail in feather structure that this coin has.
If you resubmit to PCGS, I would point out this area to highlight. Sorry.
A good exercise, pretty good fake in my book.
Keoj
>>
<< <i>A copy of a your coin to compare.
>>
Great posts! It seems we now have counterfeits that have more detail than the original.
I wonder if this was made by the Big Tree Coin Factory.
This reminds me of the Sac Cheerios variety that has more detail in the eagle feathers.
That it made it into a holder maybe but nothing here is new. Fakes have trickled into holders since the onset of TPG be they micro o Morgan's or trades, gold or what ever. As to the quality of the fake, none of the specialists were convinced. The smart people point them out and they are taken off the market. A cycle that has and will happen many times before and again. >>
I would consider PCGS to be a specialist and it passed by them twice. >>
PCGS is a great generalist with specialists on staff who only get involved when called upon, not for every coin. >>
Seriously, you can't blame PCGS for not thinking the coin is a fake -- because the diagnostics are extremely nuanced. Many folks know the diagnostics for an SVDB or the key date CC dimes because they are big money. But in this case, the stake is merely a bunch of TD geeks trying to determine if we have a new die marriage (and thus creating a hole in Crypto79's set!).
EVP >>
The comment about creating a hole in Crypto79's set is too funny
<< <i>Seriously, you can't blame PCGS for not thinking the coin is a fake -- because the diagnostics are extremely nuanced. >>
I haven't read all the fine print in the terms and conditions, but I always thought getting a coin slabbed guaranteed authenticity. Will PCGS refund only the submission fee if a slabbed coin turns out to be fake?
<< <i>Seriously, you can't blame PCGS for not thinking the coin is a fake -- because the diagnostics are extremely nuanced. >>
I haven't read all the fine print in the terms and conditions, but I always thought getting a coin slabbed guaranteed authenticity. Will PCGS refund only the submission fee if a slabbed coin turns out to be fake? >>
<< <i>PCGS has certified 95 of these contemporary counterfeit micro O coins in the past: 26 1896-Os; 31 1900-Os; and 38 1902-Os. For anyone who currently owns a PCGS graded example of these contemporary counterfeit micro O Morgans dollars, PCGS will reimburse the owner for the current market value of the coin(s) under the terms of the PCGS Grading Guarantee. Anyone who wants to take advantage of the PCGS Grading Guarantee for their micro O Morgans should contact PCGS customer service. >>
Looking at the large pictures of the coin in question, there is a strange flatness to all the high points. The rims also look filed. But both could be explained by a weak strike.
But the edge reeeding is very wrong. Look at the large picture, just below the date where the edge reeding is clearly irregularly-spaced.
Either the coin is an all-out counterfeit, or it is actually two different genuine coins that were planed-off and joined together (with a seam hidden somewhere in the rims or edge). Have you done a "ring test" on it ? If done correctly, the ring tone would be different than the tone given by genuine coin if it was made by joining two half coins.
<< <i>Looking at the large pictures of the coin in question, there is a strange flatness to all the high points. The rims also look filed. But both could be explained by a weak strike.
But the edge reeeding is very wrong. Look at the large picture, just below the date where the edge reeding is clearly irregularly-spaced.
Either the coin is an all-out counterfeit, or it is actually two different genuine coins that were planed-off and joined together (with a seam hidden somewhere in the rims or edge). Have you done a "ring test" on it ? If done correctly, the ring tone would be different than the tone given by genuine coin if it was made by joining two half coins. >>
Interesting perspective from someone versed in the manufacturing perspective. No chance of a marriage though.
Astute observation by D Carr on the edge reeding seen in the large obv image. I really believe that nearly all fake TD's can be outed by looking at the edge reeding first. I have a photo of edges of a couple of fakes which I would post if Icould get the new and improved Photobucket to work! ((also on an old thread I put on Cointalk years ago)).
I also see a few additional pimples on the ribbon tip.
As far as this getting past the graders, I am not surprised nor particularly upset. The human mind works on pattern recognition, and when you have to work fast, patterns rule. Without really thinking about it, my hypothetical grader sees "Trade Dollar, cleaned, no red flags (weird color, wrong wt, bad dentils, mismatched obv/rev)--- pass, next coin"
What does bother me is the insistence on it being genuine after Alan sent it back with specific questions about it. That's an example of the anchoring heuristic, holding onto a conclusion in the face of evidence to the contrary. It would have been nice to know on what diagnostics that conclusion was based when Alan sent it back the second time.
Alan, congratulations on your perseverance. And you definitely have a real collectible there... a fake trade dollar in a pcgs genuine holder!
<< <i>Astute observation by D Carr on the edge reeding seen in the large obv image. I really believe that nearly all fake TD's can be outed by looking at the edge reeding first. I have a photo of edges of a couple of fakes which I would post if Icould get the new and improved Photobucket to work! ((also on an old thread I put on Cointalk years ago)).
I also see a few additional pimples on the ribbon tip.
As far as this getting past the graders, I am not surprised nor particularly upset. The human mind works on pattern recognition, and when you have to work fast, patterns rule. Without really thinking about it, my hypothetical grader sees "Trade Dollar, cleaned, no red flags (weird color, wrong wt, bad dentils, mismatched obv/rev)--- pass, next coin"
What does bother me is the insistence on it being genuine after Alan sent it back with specific questions about it. That's an example of the anchoring heuristic, holding onto a conclusion in the face of evidence to the contrary. It would have been nice to know on what diagnostics that conclusion was based when Alan sent it back the second time.
Alan, congratulations on your perseverance. And you definitely have a real collectible there... a fake trade dollar in a pcgs genuine holder! >>
But I am not surprised by the 2nd PCGS decision either. 1st they most likely sided on consistency absent a smoking gun and as Alan has said he has a long history with the company so it is quite possible that they considered the source of the request.
Comments
<< <i>100! >>
NOT FAIR!!!
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
<< <i>
<< <i>100! >>
NOT FAIR!!!
Bwahahahahaha!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>100! >>
NOT FAIR!!!
Bwahahahahaha! >>
'
nerds
<< <i>Realone,
Spare us the "I'm a victim; I'm really a good guy" comments... If you really want to rise above the mudslinging, then please just stick to the TD issues.
EVP >>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>100! >>
NOT FAIR!!!
Bwahahahahaha! >>
'
nerds
Geeks.
Finally had a chance to look at the coin and am convinced that it is not genuine. There are a few tells but the most obvious one is the following: take a look at the bottom tip of the feathers (on the right as you look at it). Comparing it all other Trade dolllars a standard "defect" is always seen on the left inside of the tip. Looks like a little chip (shown by arrow on left in image below). Also if you look at the coin you presented, it has more detail in the feathers than I have have ever seen before above this area. No other Trade Dollars that I have ever seen shows the detail in feather structure that this coin has.
If you resubmit to PCGS, I would point out this area to highlight. Sorry.
A good exercise, pretty good fake in my book.
Keoj
This is why joe is the man
A copy of a your coin to compare.
I agree. If the weight was correct, and I assume that PCGS checked that, very scary.
Keoj
Coin Rarities Online
<< <i>Scary. >>
That it made it into a holder maybe but nothing here is new. Fakes have trickled into holders since the onset of TPG be they micro o Morgan's or trades, gold or what ever. As to the quality of the fake, none of the specialists were convinced. The smart people point them out and they are taken off the market. A cycle that has and will happen many times before and again.
Thanks for the great input. It's very interesting as it appears that the feather details were hand engraved into the counterfeit die with great care.
<< <i>
<< <i>Scary. >>
That it made it into a holder maybe but nothing here is new. Fakes have trickled into holders since the onset of TPG be they micro o Morgan's or trades, gold or what ever. As to the quality of the fake, none of the specialists were convinced. The smart people point them out and they are taken off the market. A cycle that has and will happen many times before and again. >>
I would consider PCGS to be a specialist and it passed by them twice.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Scary. >>
That it made it into a holder maybe but nothing here is new. Fakes have trickled into holders since the onset of TPG be they micro o Morgan's or trades, gold or what ever. As to the quality of the fake, none of the specialists were convinced. The smart people point them out and they are taken off the market. A cycle that has and will happen many times before and again. >>
I would consider PCGS to be a specialist and it passed by them twice. >>
PCGS is a great generalist with specialists on staff who only get involved when called upon, not for every coin.
<< <i>Thanks for the education guys. >>
Ditto
<< <i>This is why joe is the man >>
Yes he is. And he loves dogs too, so that makes it 2x
Btw, when is the next TD-thon?
Keoj - can you email me to let me know at which show you plan next to attend? My guess is it'll be one that I don't normally attend so I'll have to make plans in advance.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Scary. >>
That it made it into a holder maybe but nothing here is new. Fakes have trickled into holders since the onset of TPG be they micro o Morgan's or trades, gold or what ever. As to the quality of the fake, none of the specialists were convinced. The smart people point them out and they are taken off the market. A cycle that has and will happen many times before and again. >>
I would consider PCGS to be a specialist and it passed by them twice. >>
PCGS is a great generalist with specialists on staff who only get involved when called upon, not for every coin. >>
Seriously, you can't blame PCGS for not thinking the coin is a fake -- because the diagnostics are extremely nuanced. Many folks know the diagnostics for an SVDB or the key date CC dimes because they are big money. But in this case, the stake is merely a bunch of TD geeks trying to determine if we have a new die marriage (and thus creating a hole in Crypto79's set!).
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
<< <i>Btw, when is the next TD-thon? >>
So you're declaring this case closed?
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress
<< <i>Realone,
Finally had a chance to look at the coin and am convinced that it is not genuine. There are a few tells but the most obvious one is the following: take a look at the bottom tip of the feathers (on the right as you look at it). Comparing it all other Trade dolllars a standard "defect" is always seen on the left inside of the tip. Looks like a little chip (shown by arrow on left in image below). Also if you look at the coin you presented, it has more detail in the feathers than I have have ever seen before above this area. No other Trade Dollars that I have ever seen shows the detail in feather structure that this coin has.
If you resubmit to PCGS, I would point out this area to highlight. Sorry.
A good exercise, pretty good fake in my book.
Keoj
<< <i>A copy of a your coin to compare.
Great posts! It seems we now have counterfeits that have more detail than the original.
I wonder if this was made by the Big Tree Coin Factory.
This reminds me of the Sac Cheerios variety that has more detail in the eagle feathers.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Scary. >>
That it made it into a holder maybe but nothing here is new. Fakes have trickled into holders since the onset of TPG be they micro o Morgan's or trades, gold or what ever. As to the quality of the fake, none of the specialists were convinced. The smart people point them out and they are taken off the market. A cycle that has and will happen many times before and again. >>
I would consider PCGS to be a specialist and it passed by them twice. >>
PCGS is a great generalist with specialists on staff who only get involved when called upon, not for every coin. >>
Seriously, you can't blame PCGS for not thinking the coin is a fake -- because the diagnostics are extremely nuanced. Many folks know the diagnostics for an SVDB or the key date CC dimes because they are big money. But in this case, the stake is merely a bunch of TD geeks trying to determine if we have a new die marriage (and thus creating a hole in Crypto79's set!).
EVP >>
The comment about creating a hole in Crypto79's set is too funny
<< <i>Seriously, you can't blame PCGS for not thinking the coin is a fake -- because the diagnostics are extremely nuanced. >>
I haven't read all the fine print in the terms and conditions, but I always thought getting a coin slabbed guaranteed authenticity. Will PCGS refund only the submission fee if a slabbed coin turns out to be fake?
<< <i>
<< <i>Seriously, you can't blame PCGS for not thinking the coin is a fake -- because the diagnostics are extremely nuanced. >>
I haven't read all the fine print in the terms and conditions, but I always thought getting a coin slabbed guaranteed authenticity. Will PCGS refund only the submission fee if a slabbed coin turns out to be fake? >>
I'm not sure what will happen in this case but the following is from the PCGS Micro-o Announcement:
<< <i>PCGS has certified 95 of these contemporary counterfeit micro O coins in the past: 26 1896-Os; 31 1900-Os; and 38 1902-Os. For anyone who currently owns a PCGS graded example of these contemporary counterfeit micro O Morgans dollars, PCGS will reimburse the owner for the current market value of the coin(s) under the terms of the PCGS Grading Guarantee. Anyone who wants to take advantage of the PCGS Grading Guarantee for their micro O Morgans should contact PCGS customer service. >>
The rims also look filed. But both could be explained by a weak strike.
But the edge reeeding is very wrong. Look at the large picture, just below the date where the edge reeding is clearly irregularly-spaced.
Either the coin is an all-out counterfeit, or it is actually two different genuine coins that were planed-off and joined together (with a seam hidden somewhere in the rims or edge).
Have you done a "ring test" on it ? If done correctly, the ring tone would be different than the tone given by genuine coin if it was made by joining two half coins.
<< <i>Looking at the large pictures of the coin in question, there is a strange flatness to all the high points.
The rims also look filed. But both could be explained by a weak strike.
But the edge reeeding is very wrong. Look at the large picture, just below the date where the edge reeding is clearly irregularly-spaced.
Either the coin is an all-out counterfeit, or it is actually two different genuine coins that were planed-off and joined together (with a seam hidden somewhere in the rims or edge).
Have you done a "ring test" on it ? If done correctly, the ring tone would be different than the tone given by genuine coin if it was made by joining two half coins. >>
Interesting perspective from someone versed in the manufacturing perspective. No chance of a marriage though.
I also see a few additional pimples on the ribbon tip.
As far as this getting past the graders, I am not surprised nor particularly upset. The human mind works on pattern recognition, and when you have to work fast, patterns rule.
Without really thinking about it, my hypothetical grader sees "Trade Dollar, cleaned, no red flags (weird color, wrong wt, bad dentils, mismatched obv/rev)--- pass, next coin"
What does bother me is the insistence on it being genuine after Alan sent it back with specific questions about it. That's an example of the anchoring heuristic, holding onto a conclusion in the face of evidence to the contrary. It would have been nice to know on what diagnostics that conclusion was based when Alan sent it back the second time.
Alan, congratulations on your perseverance. And you definitely have a real collectible there... a fake trade dollar in a pcgs genuine holder!
<< <i>Astute observation by D Carr on the edge reeding seen in the large obv image. I really believe that nearly all fake TD's can be outed by looking at the edge reeding first. I have a photo of edges of a couple of fakes which I would post if Icould get the new and improved Photobucket to work! ((also on an old thread I put on Cointalk years ago)).
I also see a few additional pimples on the ribbon tip.
As far as this getting past the graders, I am not surprised nor particularly upset. The human mind works on pattern recognition, and when you have to work fast, patterns rule.
Without really thinking about it, my hypothetical grader sees "Trade Dollar, cleaned, no red flags (weird color, wrong wt, bad dentils, mismatched obv/rev)--- pass, next coin"
What does bother me is the insistence on it being genuine after Alan sent it back with specific questions about it. That's an example of the anchoring heuristic, holding onto a conclusion in the face of evidence to the contrary. It would have been nice to know on what diagnostics that conclusion was based when Alan sent it back the second time.
Alan, congratulations on your perseverance. And you definitely have a real collectible there... a fake trade dollar in a pcgs genuine holder! >>
But I am not surprised by the 2nd PCGS decision either. 1st they most likely sided on consistency absent a smoking gun and as Alan has said he has a long history with the company so it is quite possible that they considered the source of the request.