Counterfeit 09-S Indian Cent - Need Help

Catbert

I have a good friend who is wanting to learn and understand why his 09-S Indian cent is counterfeit. He bought this coin in the 80s and it was recently returned from ANACS as a counterfeit (with a note that the S was added).

In the spirit of learning, he asked me to post his pictures of the coin and to see if anyone could point out the differences between a legitimate version and his coin. If you have pics that can help compare/contrast, that would also be desirable. I sent him some ebay descriptive links that gave an overview of some of the markers, but when he read them they weren't helpful. I am not qualified to guide him in this matter.

So, take a look and share your thoughts!





On his behalf and mine, thank you in advance.

ebaybuyer

the S is wrong. should be the same S used on early lincolns I believe tell your friend to punch up heritage.com and compare his to some similar circulated 09-s Indians. pictures are a much more clear than a description

lkeigwin

The S should be square/boxy, over all, with parallel serifs. While the same S punch was used for years on early Lincoln cents, the MM for the IHC's is slightly larger.

Below are MM's from an '08-S, '09-S IHC, '09-S Lincoln, and '09S-VDB Lincoln.

If that's an added MM in the OP it's mighty fine work. I might get a 2nd opinion.
Lance.

(edited for accuracy)

mercurydimeguy

The OP "S" is rotated clockwise about 8-10 degrees too much, also, we don't have fine pictures to see what the metal flow looks like inside the "S," which can be a telling sign.

AngryTurtle

My first question would be: Is it counterfeit or a real 1909 with an added mint mark? The details look soft even for a circ, so I am suspecting the former, a counterfeit where the counterfeiter did not do the mint mark right.

Catbert

So, if we focus then upon his coin's mintmark, the serifs do appear "boxy" and parallel, right? I'm still having a tough time telling the difference with his S and the legit examples.

edit: I did not see the edited comment above regarding mintmark rotation. I think I see that!

BustHalfBrian

<< <i>My first question would be: Is it counterfeit or a real 1909 with an added mint mark? The details look soft even for a circ, so I am suspecting the former, a counterfeit where the counterfeiter did not do the mint mark right. >>



The coin looks real. The mintmark does not.

It may look strange because the surfaces were tooled after the mintmark was added. This helps the mintmark blend in with the rest of the coin. If not, there would be discoloration around that area.

ModCrewman

Perhaps this thread on My first questionable authenticity submission of a 1909-S from my father's collection will provide some insight. Though IMHO the mintmark placement appears accurate.

lkeigwin

<< <i>My first question would be: Is it counterfeit or a real 1909 with an added mint mark? The details look soft even for a circ, so I am suspecting the former, a counterfeit where the counterfeiter did not do the mint mark right. >>

It appears ANACS felt it was a genuine 1909.

Since the date was hubbed it shouldn't be difficult to compare numeral and denticle positions.
Lance.

Catbert

<< <i>Perhaps this thread on My first questionable authenticity submission of a 1909-S from my father's collection will provide some insight. Though IMHO the mintmark placement appears accurate. >>



Modcrewman -

Thanks for the link. I see in your thread that IHC expert Rick Snow posted reverse die markers from his web page here. I will ask my friend to examine his coin under a loupe to see if the die markers are evident.

Edited to correct link - thanks Lance!

lkeigwin

Try https://indiancent.wikispaces.com/1909-S

jdimmick

I swear the whole reverse of that coin looks fake?

LindeDad

<< <i>I swear the whole reverse of that coin looks fake? >>



Looks polished to me.

BillJones

<< <i>

<< <i>I swear the whole reverse of that coin looks fake? >>



Looks polished to me. >>



I agree. I think that the reverse has been polished. I'm not 100% sure that the coin is a counterfeit. The mint mark looks to in the right place and have the right shape. Here is the reverse of a 1909-S Indian Cent that was certified as an MS-64, Brown by PCGS or NGC. I forgot which one it was

SaorAlba

The mintmarks were sometimes even glued on - and have been known to fall off later. See the post above about the serifs on the S - on the OP coin they are almost non-existent.

DaveWcoins

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>I swear the whole reverse of that coin looks fake? >>



Looks polished to me. >>



I agree. I think that the reverse has been polished. I'm not 100% sure that the coin is a counterfeit. The mint mark looks to in the right place and have the right shape. Here is the reverse of a 1909-S Indian Cent that was certified as an MS-64, Brown by PCGS or NGC. I forgot which one it was

>>



That's what I was thinking too, Bill.

I wonder if it is a genuine 1909-S 1c that has had the reverse severely polished.

IndianHeadMan

the S rotation in degrees was the first thing I noticed.

garrynot

Maybe dip the mint mark in acetone and see what happens ?

grip

Did you check out the edge of the coin?

telephoto1

The mintmark looks genuine to me; the coin does appear to have been cleaned however. I'd consider submitting it to our hosts.

EagleEye

Your coin:




There are only two known reverse dies:

S1



S2


It looks like the second genuine example (S2). It could just be a heavily polished genuine coin.


Found here

Catbert

Thanks again to all who've responded. My friend sent me another picture of the reverse that shows more of its natural color. While this new pic is not detailed enough to help with the die markers that Rick has provided, it is not overexposed and may counter the polishing perceptions previously stated. Anyway, based upon all of your comments, he's decided to get another opinion and will send the coin to PCGS. I'll let you know the results once he's learned the outcome.

BillJones

The "fuzziness" of the design elements means that the coin has either been polished and recolored (on maybe has done some re-toning over the last 20 + years), or it is a counterfeit. I tend to go with the first observation.

mr1931S

Without knowing about serifs and angles,the first thing I observed was the boldness of the mintmark.This makes the coin immediately suspect in my mind.

mr1931S

The coin has an overall fake look to it.Non-experts in a series should always buy expensive key dates like this only in a reputable TPG slab.

mr1931S

If the mintmark was added,a soak in some acetone should result in the mintmark falling off.

EagleEye

I think PCGS will call it "No decision".

You could send it to me to examine in-hand if you like.

ModCrewman

That's a pretty good offer.

coin4sale

strike too mushy in some places too bold in others. '


ill wager FAKE -

OldIndianNutKase

The coin is a fake. Mintmark was added. When compared to the two die varieties posted by Rick Snow, you will notice that the distance between the S mint mark and the space between the bottom of the S and the dentils is significantly not in proportion the the height of the S.

OINK

GrumpyEd

Confusing!

Is the S slightly bigger and lower on it than it should be?

The S style looks like a better match than I'd expect on a fake.

I'd take Rick up on his offer to examine it.

Catbert

<< <i>I think PCGS will call it "No decision".

You could send it to me to examine in-hand if you like. >>



PM sent, Rick. My friend plans to send it to you. Thank you, and perhaps we can revisit this thread in the future with the outcome of your review!

EagleEye

Thanks for sending the coin.

The coin is not an added mint mark, but struck from a fake die. The mint marks is very close to the genuine as the first image shows. The genuine coin is under the fake. The fake coin has heavily polished to hide imperfections. It was likely made back in the 1970's.

Ethan

Rick you are a class act.

Thanks!

VanHalen

Thanks to Rick Snow for the authentication and photos!

LanceNewmanOCC

.
thanks for the side-by-side images.

they look so alike, until i did some mm alignment work.

i will probably use this alignment method for my study.

once i do both known reverse dies against this fakie, i'll have some interesting info!
.

OldEastside

WOW this is definitely the best thread this month

Education is Priceless

Steve

GrumpyEd

Great comparison from Rick!
That one was confusing, I think many collectors would think it was good.

IrishMikey

The coin looked bad to me from the images, mostly because the mintmark did not look like it "belonged"
on the coin (different texture, etc.). I still question whether it is an alteration vs. a counterfeit -- most
decent counterfeits are made from genuine coins, so the position of the 'S' would be the same. If this is
a struck counterfeit, then the 'S' would have been added to the fake die. While that does happen, it is
pretty unusual, since it adds quite a bit to the labor costs when producing fake dies, something that they
try to avoid. Any chance the fake reverse die was made from a 1908-S?

Since I have not seen the coin, only the images, I will defer to Rick's judgement. Besides, bad is bad --
the news is not good for the owner either way. This is one that I will put into my files for future reference.

Thanks for your great work on this coin, Rick. Superior images.

metalmeister

ANACS graded this one found in an indian cent dealer bin