Yeah....I'm not sure what the right answer is either.
But for that reason alone, it's probably a really good lesson! It's too easy to think such things are EASY, and an added mintmark/altered date will just "reveal itself". These are all pretty beat up coins, and the mint marks are beat up as well. I think any of them could fool non-experts.
But, never one to be deterred by my own ignorance, I'm guessing that:
1 and 2 are fake. (Based on evidence of heat caused coloration changes, more than anything else.) 3 is real? (Dirt around the mintmark appears to be consistent with that around the date).
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it....until someonce corrects me.
They all look fine to me. Note the wear and tear on the mint marks is all along the same line as the date. In added mint mark situations that would not be the case since the mint-mark is added later.
MLAeBayNumismatics: "The greatest hobby in the world!"
You can't post a raw coin on this board that isn't perfect-let alone a coin with photos like that-and not have some people tell you it isn't genuine. I have no idea if any of those cents are real...they could all be genuine.
These all look good, there are some bogus ones out there but because they're not worth as much as, say, an 09SVDB there's a lot less incentive to do quality work, usually the added mintmark on a 1931 or altered final digit in a 193X-S are very easy tells. There may be some transfer die counterfeits, I haven't seen one, but those would also be pretty obvious.
Me at the Springfield coin show: 60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
<< <i>Now, I want to know what the answer is! I was assuming it was a quiz instead of an actual question of authenticity....but maybe there is no "answer". >>
I can tell you this they were all 3 sent in to PCGS for authentication.....
The dates don't look altered, and the mintmark style is right on all 3. Maybe the gunk around the mintmarks is making some people not trust them but I think it's only dirt.
Comments
Seriously, I don't know the diagnostics to look for, but the mintmark looks "off" on 1 and 3, while 2 has more of a "real coin" look.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature

-Paul
But for that reason alone, it's probably a really good lesson! It's too easy to think such things are EASY, and an added mintmark/altered date will just "reveal itself". These are all pretty beat up coins, and the mint marks are beat up as well. I think any of them could fool non-experts.
But, never one to be deterred by my own ignorance, I'm guessing that:
1 and 2 are fake. (Based on evidence of heat caused coloration changes, more than anything else.)
3 is real? (Dirt around the mintmark appears to be consistent with that around the date).
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it....until someonce corrects me.
The Lincoln cent store:
http://www.lincolncent.com
My numismatic art work:
http://www.cdaughtrey.com
USAF veteran, 1986-1996 :: support our troops - the American way.
60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
<< <i>Now, I want to know what the answer is! I was assuming it was a quiz instead of an actual question of authenticity....but maybe there is no "answer". >>
I can tell you this they were all 3 sent in to PCGS for authentication.....
Coin Club Benefit auctions ..... View the Lots
yes
no
BHNC #203
Maybe the gunk around the mintmarks is making some people not trust them but I think it's only dirt.
I think all of them will come back authentic.
They are all 3 in problem free holders.
Does anyone know of any online guides or information on 1931-S Wheat Cents?
Coin Club Benefit auctions ..... View the Lots